Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.20.98 Council Packet COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR July 20, 1998 6:30 PM CHAMBER/COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVEAGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Introduction - New Employee b) Arts in the Area - Gerry Drewry 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) a) Dolly Newberg, Jason Elias - Sanitary Sewer Backup b) Michelle Roschen - Storm Water Pond c) Randy Merkyns - Environmental Issues d) Mary Stark - Operations Management 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes 7/6/98 (Regular) and 7/7/98 (Special) b) Adopt Resolution - Accepting Donations - Senior Center c) Capital Outlay Request - Public Works d) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT a) Adopt Resolution - 2nd Street Parking Lot Award 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Resolution - Prairie Creek East EA W Declaration b) Adopt Resolution - Authorizing Feasibility Report for Glenview Townhome Frontage Road c) Prairie Creek Development - Citizen Petition d) Establish Council Workshop Date - 1999 Proposed Budget Action Taken 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Development Issues - Punch Lists b) Development Issues - Building Inspection Procedures c) Development Issues - Keyland Homes Penalty d) Development Issues - Progress Land Company Letter of Credit e) Downtown Streetscape (Carry-over July 6, 1998) - Neighborhood Meeting Feedback 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Water Shut-off Policy - Revision (Carry-over July 6, 1998) b) Ash Street Reconstruction/Prairie Waterway III - Committee Appointment c) Ash Street Reconstruction/Prairie Waterway III - Draft City Principles d) Sanitary Sewer System - Alternate Power Plan 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE a) S1. Paul Train Whistles (Carry-over July 6, 1998) b) Hickory Street Storm Water Update c) Acceptance of Private Development Project - Council Policy Discussion 14. ADJOURN 6b TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administratot~ FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Service Manager SUBJECT: Arts in the Area DATE: July 20, 1998 INTRODUCTIONIDISCUSSION Representatives from the Dakota Valley Arts Council, Friends of the Library, Farmington Chorale and the Childrens Castle Theatre will be present to talk about Arts related activities in Farmington and the benefits they provide for residents of the City. ACTION REQUIRED This is for Council's information only. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Service Manager CitlJ. of FarminlJ.ton 325 Oak Street · FarminlJ.tonJ MN 55024 · (612) 463.7111 · Fa/( (612) 463.2591 (;a- TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Dolly Newberg, Jason Elias - Sanitary Sewer Backup - Fairhills Lift Station DATE: July 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION At the July 6, 1998 City Council meeting, Mrs. Dolly Newberg and Mr. Jason Elias forwarded several issues to Council regarding the sewer backups on May 15th and June 26th. DISCUSSION Back-up Generators The question was raised as to whether the City is pursuing alternate power sources for the lift stations in emergency situations and it was stated that other cities have back-up generators. Staff is pursuing alternate power sources; refer to item 12d in this agenda. Also attached is a survey conducted of other cities in the area regarding their alternative power capabilities. Operation of Equipment Questions have been raised regarding the operation of the pump that was used to pump the lift station. The crew that was operating the pump is trained in the use of the pump and there was no problem with the pump being primed on the night of June 26th. Emergency Plan The question was asked whether the City has an emergency plan for responding to lift stations in power outages. As discussed at the Council meeting, the Street and Utility crew are trained to respond to this type of situation. Staff will be putting the guidelines for responding to this type of situation in writing for future training purposes and will be available for Council's information at the Council meeting. Damaged Hose During the May 25th incident, a leak was present in the hose that connects to the pump which was temporarily patched during the operation. In addition, a vehicle ran over another section of hose causing a split in that hose. Subsequent to May 15th incident the City invested in several hundred feet of hose in order to increase the supply of hose and replace sections that are found to leak. The section of hose that connects to the pump is a special type of hose. It I CitlJ of FarminlJ.ton 325 Oak Street · Farmington, MN 5502~. (612) ~63.7111. Fait (612) ~63.2591 , ' was not repaired immediately following the May 15th incident and subsequently was used again during the pumping operation for the June 26th incident. Failure to repair the hose following the first incident was an unfortunate oversight. The hose was repaired the next working day following the June 26th incident and subsequently the pumps and hoses have been checked for leaks. In the future, any leaks that are discovered will be repaired as quickly as possible. Other The other issues discussed regarding the time line, response time, lift station capacity and storm water inflow have been previously addressed in the memo presented to Council on July 6, 1998 (see attached). ACTION REQUESTED For Council information. Respectfully submitted, ~111~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Dolly Newberg Jason Elias . . Survey of Area Cities Backup Power for Lift Stations and Wells 7/14/98 City Generators for Wells Generators for Lift Stations Apple Valley Natural gas engines 2 portable - 10 lift stations Generator at water treatment plant can also run 3 wells Lakeville 0 1 portable for 18 lift stations - 2 permanent standby Rosemount 1 portable for both Eagan Natural gas wells 2 portable for 9 lift stations Burnsville 2 generators 1 portable, 100KW 10 elec. wells, 6 natural gas Hastings In process of getting a 1 portable for 6 lift stations generator & a diesel motor One standby nat. gas motor So. St. Paul 2 Back-up motors, one gas none & one diesel . . TO: Mayor, Counc~e~bers, City Administrator'-j"-' FROM: Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Dolly Newberg/Mary Stark Sanitary Sewer Backup issues DATE: July 6, 1998 INTRODUCTION At the June 15th City Council meeting, Mrs. Dolly Newberg and Mrs. Mary Stark brought forth complaints to the City Council regarding a sewer backup that occurred May 15, 1998. This memo is forwarded to Council to address the issues raised by Mrs. Newberg and Mrs. Stark verbally and in Mrs. Newberg's letter to Council. DISCUSSION Time/ine of Events Following is a timeline of the events that occurred on the evening of May 15th in regards to the sewer backup and the City's response. Also refer to the attached, signed statement by the staff that responded to the situation. 4:25 pm. - High level alarm for the Fairhills lift station goes off. Ben Van Blarcom and Bill Weierke are contacted by Lena Larson and informed of the alarm. 5:00 - 5:15 pm. - The crew gathers equipment, goes to the Fairhills and Pine Knoll Lift stations. 5:15 - 5:30 pm. - Ben Van Blarcom- and Bill Weierke arrive at the Fairhills lift station, sewage was coming out of the manhole. The rest of the crew arrives and begins to set up to pump the lift station. 5:30 - 5:45 pm. - Started pumping sewage down in the lift station. Lift station a/arm system and response Questions have been raised regarding the alarm system on the lift station and timing of notification. It has been indicated that the power went out at approximately 4:00 pm on May 15th. The alarm system for the lift station is not actuated by a power failure. The alarm is I CitlJ. of Farmint}.ton 325 Oak Street · Farmintjton, MN 55024 · (612) 463.7111 · FaJr (612) 463.2591 . , actuated by a high wafer level. The alarm received by the City for the Fairhills lift station at approximately 4:25 pm was for a high water level. It could be reasonably concluded that the delay between the time the power went out and the time the alarm was received corresponded to the time it took for the sewage level in the lift station to rise to the high water alarm level. The alarm was working the evening of the 15th, it was being monitored and the appropriate personnel were notified when the alarm went off. Questions have been raised regarding how the response to the alarm system works. When an alarm goes off during business hours, (as was the case on May 15th), staff at City Hall notifies the appropriate personnel and the problem is investigated and resolved. In the case that an alarm goes off after hours, Trans Alarm pages the staff member that is on pager duty. The person on pager duty investigates and resolves the situation or if necessary contacts the appropriate personnel for help in resolving the situation. The amount of time it took to respond to the scene has been questioned. It is stated in the policy regarding pager duty, "A page must be answered within 5 minutes and the individual on pager duty should be able to respond to the scene within 20 minutes." In the situation that existed on May 15th with multiple emergencies, the power out in a major portion of the City and downed power lines blocking roads, the response time to the scene was justified. Operational Issues Questions have been raised regarding several circumstances that occurred during the response to the situation on May 15th. The issues regarding the hoses, the jumper cables, hose connector and leaks in the hose have been addressed in the attached memo from the staff that responded to the situation. To reiterate: 1) The crew did have jumper cables and the battery for the pump was jumped and the pumps were started quickly. 2) A leak in the hose did occur near the pump, but a plastic pail was held over the leak until it was duct taped and at no time did sewage from that leak spray onto passing pedestrians or cars. Subsequently, a car did run over the hose that crossed the street up the road from the lift station and caused a split in the hose. There is an emergency plan for situations such as occurred on the 15th. The City staff knows how to respond to situations such that occurred on the 15th and they responded appropriately on the 15th. The lift station backup in January occurred at a lift station in Pine Knoll, in a different part of the City and was the result of an equipment malfunction, not a storm or power outage. Storm Water in the lift station Questions have been raised regarding the possibility of storm water present in the lift station on the night of May 15th. According to observations from City staff, there was evidence of storm water in the lift station. Leaves were observed in the wet well. Faced with this evidence, staff has continued to search for possible sources of inflow into the sanitary sewer system tributary to the lift station. One source of inflow to the system was identified during a more recent storm event, was plugged and will be permanently corrected. It would be .0( , conjecture as to whether this identified source of inflow was a source of inflow on the night of the 15th. Capacity of the Fairhills lift station Questions have been raised regarding the capacity of the Fairhills lift station. Based on the pumping records for the lift station, the lift station is operating significantly under capacity. Responsibility for Damages It has been stated that City personnel indicated to the residents involved that the City would pay for the damages caused by the sewer backups. As stated in the attached memo from the staff involved in the response to the backup, at no time that night or any time subsequent to that night did Bill Weierke or any of the crew tell Mrs. Newberg, Mrs. Stark, any other resident or any elected official that the City was responsible for the damage, that the City would pay for the damage or that the residents had been told that the City would pay for the damage. Backup Generators The City is currently in the process of receiving quotations for backup generators. In the case of the January backup of the lift station in Pine Knoll, a generator would not have helped the situation and did not indicate a need for a generator since the problem was due to an equipment malfunction, not a power outage. ACTION REOUESTED F or council information. Respectfully submitted, ;km~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer attachment cc: file Dolly Newberg Mary Stark ~b 1"- ~ ..., TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator ~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Michelle Rochen - Storm Water Pond DATE: July 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION At the July 6, 1998 City Council meeting, Michelle Rochen, a neighbor of Mrs. Dolly Newberg, expressed concern regarding the possibility of sewage contamination in the pond behind the Newberg residence. DISCUSSION City staff has had contact with the MPCA regarding this matter. The MPCA has had a test performed on a sample of the water from the pond to determine coliform levels. According to Laura Triplett, a representative from the MPCA, the results of the test indicate a level of 100 colonies per 100 milliliters. In further discussions with Ms. Triplett, she indicated that the County guidelines for closing a public beach is 1000 colonies per 100 milliliters, or ten times the coliform level found in the sample from the pond behind the Newberg residence. She also indicated that the standard for effluent discharged from a wastewater treatment plant is 200 colonies per 100 milliliters, or twice the coliform level found in the sample. Ms. Triplett further suggested that the City test several samples from the pond over the next couple of months in order to establish the base coliform level in the pond. Those test results will be forwarded to Council when complete. BUDGET IMPACT The tests will be funded through sanitary sewer operating revenues as an operational expense. It is estimated that the tests will cost between $25 and $50 per test. I CitlJ. of Farmint}.ton 325 Oak Street · FarminiJtonJ MN 5502~ · (612) ~63. 7111 · Fax (612) ~63.2591 .. ~ ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, ~Yvt~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Michelle Rochen Ce.. TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrator~ FROM: David L. Olson Community Development Director SUBJECT: Citizen Comments - Randy Merkyns DATE: July 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION Randy Merkyns, a resident of Lime Rock Ridge Subdivision, expressed concerns about changes in ground water levels in Farmington and the surrounding area and how this impacts development. DISCUSSION The City has adopted several goals and policies as part of its Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that deal with groundwater issues and copies of these sections of the plan are attached. Policy #2 on page 14 of the plan requires the establishment of allowable elevations for lowest floor of buildings in areas with high or perched groundwater. The City has established a minimum freeboard of 2 feet above the highest recorded groundwater. Developers are required to provide this information from existing on-site wells or piezometers installed by the developer and monitored for a minimum of six months. The monitoring period shall include Spring months when groundwater levels are typically at their highest levels. The City has also adopted the goal "To protect groundwater quality and promote groundwater recharge" which is included on page 18 of the SWMP. A total of seven policies have been adopted as part of the City's plan to achieve this goal and they are listed on the attached sheet. According to the City's surface water consultanting engineer, there has been a local trend in recent years which has resulted in more annual precipitation amounts than were experienced in the 1960s and 70s. It appears that this trend is somewhat cyclical and that precipitation levels in future years may likely return to previous levels. Obviously, precipitation levels have a direct impact on groundwater levels. I CitlJ. of Farmin9ton It should also be noted that the Corps of Engineers is not an agency that has primary responsibility for monitoring local groundwater levels. The Corps of Engineers does have responsibility for the protection of wetlands on the federal level as well as flood control projects funded by the federal government and the operation and maintenance of locks and dams on navigable waters including the Mississippi River. 325 Oak Street · Farm;ntjtonl MN 55024 · (612) 463.7111 · Fax (612) 463.2591 The governmental entity with primary responsibility for ground water related issues locally is Dakota County. They are responsible for the preparation of the Water Plan for Dakota County as well as the administration of the well-head protection program for the County. The County would also be the agency that monitors the historical trends for groundwater levels locally and in fact a County hired consultant was in Farmington this spring doing testing to determine the groundwater levels in certain areas of the City. Staff is anticipating receiving the results of these tests in the very near future. In summary, the City is actively monitoring and does address groundwater issues through the requirements established in its adopted Surface Water Management Plan. The City is also committed to cooperating with other government agencies in these efforts. BUDGET IMPACT None ACTION REOUESTED F or information only. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ David L. Olson Community Development Director cc: Randy Merkyns t. II II II II II II II ~ II II - III ~ I ~ , ~ ~ ----- ~t'f ~ ~r-7'~~ ~Ac~ J<fr,-- /"'Z;"y'-?~~rA; ~ Groundwater Protection (GOAL: To protect groundwater quality and promote groundwat~r recharge. \ I Ii '\1\ II \~ i' Policy 1: Policy 2: \ \\ Policy 3: ; \ I 1 \ Policy 4: Policy 5: \\ ( I Policy 6: \ '\ ''\ Policy 7: To promote and coordinate with other agencies the continuation of existing groundwater monitoring, inventorying or permitting programs. To encourage the development of spill prevention, control, and counter measure plans that are consistent with State and/or Federal regulations. To assist members within State or other governmental agencies in resolving groundwater quality problems. Encourage the preservation of wetlands, ponds, and park areas to encourage infiltration of precipitation in areas where land use is not anticipated to adversely affect surface water runoff. Support the effort to gather further information on the hydrogeology of the regIOn. The City of Farmington will cooperate with the Dakota County Environmental Health Department to insure that all unsealed or improperly abandoned wells with that City are properly sealed. The City of Farmington will sweep the streets at least two times annually. 2.1.4 Natural Resources Protection GOAL: To protect and rehabilitate natural resources in order to maintain or improve their function and value. Policy 1: Policy 2: Develop and maintain an inventory of high quality wetlands, prairies, and forested areas on a map and classify them by type and function. Adopt ordinances and standards in accordance with the local watershed management plan designed to protect wetlands. Farmington SWMP 18 rI. I I I I it I I ~ I I I I ~ I I , ~ [I C:'f ~-/2/-/7~ -<.-~J,&-~4?~_.r4; Policy 1: Policy 2: Policy 3: Policy 4: Policy 5: Policy 6: Establish allowable elevations for the lowest floor of buildings adjacent to ponding areas and floodplains when drainage facilities are constructed for an area. Desired minimum freeboard of 2 feet above the 100-year} high water level (HWL), or 1 foot above the emergency overflow elevation whichever is less restrictive. Establish allowable elevations for the lowest floor of buildings located in areas with high or perched groundwater. Desired minimum freeboard of 2 feet above the highest recorded groundwater elevation unless policy 1 is more restrictive. The highest recorded groundwater elevation shall be based on records from existing on-site wells and/or piezometers installed by the developer and monitored for a minimum of six months. The monitoring period shall include the Spring months beginning in March. The minimum freeboard may be increased 1 foot at the City Engineer's discretion if rainfall during the monitoring period and/or 1 year prior is less than 80% of average rainfall (on average Minneapolis receives 18" of precipitation from March through August and 29" for the year). Establish the 5-year rainfall event as the minimum criterion for all stormwater conveyance facility designs. Also allow for groundwater flows into the system. Upgrade existing stormwater facilities to a 5-year level of service where practical. Establish and maintain overflow routes where possible to provide relief during storms which exceed design conditions. Establish and maintain emergency pond overflow routes whenever feasible. Properly design, operate, and maintain the surface water system. Strictly enforce City ordinances regulating floodplain development. 1 There is no implication that floods with a return period of 100 years will occur precisely 100 years apart. This term simply states that during any given year, there is a 1% probability that a 100 year flooding event will be equaled or exceeded. Fannington SWMP 14 hel TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Citizen Comments - Mrs. Mary Stark Operational Management DATE: July 20,1998 INTRODUCTION At the July 6, 1998 Council meeting, Mrs. Stark made a number of comments relative to operational management, staff accountability, and potential conflicts of interest by the Director of Public Works given his employment status with the City. Mrs. Stark's comments suggested that the Council should be more involved in City operations, and that the manner in which City staff recently handled a sewer back up at her home reflected, in her opinion, poor business practices. DISCUSSION In light of the fact that Mrs. Stark's comments originate primarily from her perceptions relative to the City's recent handling of a sewer back up in her home on May 15, 1998, it would appear that her comments on operational management issues are specifically interrelated with this most recent situation. Operational Management Pursuant to the City Code, the responsibility for the operational management of the City rests with the Office of the City Administrator. Through this office, Council policies are translated into organizational objectives, and implemented under the direction of the City Administrator. The City's Management Team, comprised of senior department managers, reports to and is accountable to the City Administrator for the delivery of those services. In turn, the City Administrator is responsible and accountable to the City Council for all operational decisions, issues and problems. As was the case with the recent sewer back-up, my office conducted a thorough investigation of all events and complaints and reported those findings to Council. The findings of that investigation concluded that the City responded appropriately in this situation. My office stands by those findings. Staff Accountability Pursuant to the City Code, the City is organized into functional departments, with line divisions. Reporting relationships within individual departments are clearly defined up to the department director level, with ultimate accountability by the department director to the Administrator for the proper performance of department duties and responsibilities. The Administrator is held I CitlJ of Farmin9ton 325 Oak Street. FarmintJ.tonJ MN 55024. (612) 463.7111 · FaK (612) 463.2591 Mayor and Council Members Citizen Comments - Mary Stark Page 2 of3 accountable by Council for the overall performance of all departments within the organization, and is expected to take corrective action when appropriate and necessary. With the exception of Council ratification of hiring and firing decisions as may from time to time be recommended by my office, all other staff performance issues are reviewed and approved by my office, in compliance with state and federal employment laws. These decisions are routinely reviewed by the City Attorney, Human Resources Office and employment law advisors. Conflicts of Interest Mrs. Stark made several comments relative to potential conflicts of interest by Mr. Mann as an employee of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates (BRAA) that suggested that the quality and integrity of his decisions as they relate to City interests may be subordinated to those of BRAA interests. First, it is important to clarify that Mr. Mann, not BRAA, was appointed Director of Public Works/City Engineer as recommended by my office. Mr. Mann's appointment as a department director is no different than any other department director, and would be treated similarly in that a recommendation from my office would be necessary to terminate Mr. Mann's services. It would be my hope that any decision would be based on factual, objective findings and not simply on alleged, groundless perceptions. Secondly, Mr. Mann's status has been reviewed by the City Attorney, another outsourced position, and no conflicts of interest have been identified. Should a potential conflict of interest situation emerge, my office, in coordination with the City Attorney, will take whatever precautions necessary to minimize and/or eliminate the factors contributing to such a situation. Finally, it should be noted that many cities employ consultants, private contractors, and outsource a variety of services, such as police, fire, attorneys, building inspections, and assessing as opposed to hiring staff. It is unfortunate that Mrs. Stark's comments appear to suggest that Mr. Mann's integrity and honesty are suspect given the fact that he is not a statutorily defined public employee. Mr. Mann's engineering expertise, personal honesty and professional integrity has never been in doubt, and has greatly benefited the City and community regardless of his employment status. Mr. Mann is bound to the same standards of professional conduct and ethics as other City employees, and is professionally licensured as an engineer. I find any such allegations in this particular matter to the contrary to be without merit and undeserving of further attention by my office. Operations Management Responsibility Discussion on a number of occasions with Council on this issue has confirmed that the responsibility for City operations and organizational management in general should remain Mayor and Council Members Citizen Comments - Mary Stark Page 3 of3 within my office consistent with the City Code. It is and continues to be my understanding that the majority of Council agrees with this fundamental management principle. Many cities have discovered that professional management of the City organization is highly preferred and desirable to political involvement in the delivery of City services. My position is held accountable for service delivery problems and issues, and my office is responsible to the City Council and to all citizens for the effective delivery of local government services. The management team comprised of senior management professionals are well versed and educated on issues affecting their particular areas of responsibilities, yet are always willing to review any new thoughts and ideas on issues affecting the community. The majority of cities in the metropolitan area, and throughout the country, operate under a professional management/administration form of government. Ostensibly, this form of government has worked very well, and continues to be adopted by communities throughout the United States. ACTION REOUESTED For information only. Res~ec lly submitted, ~~ hn F. Erar ity Administrator Cc: Mrs. Mary Stark ~7cu COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR July 6,1998 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 P.M. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Gamer, Strachan. Members Absent: None. Also Present: City Administrator Erar, Attorney Joel Jamnik, City Management Team. 4. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Gamer, second by Cordes to approve the agenda with the addition of the supplemental item 9a - 2nd Street Parking Lot and add Developer Issues as the fIrst item under Unfmished Business. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS -None. 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS- . a)Dolly Newberg, 5680 W. 193rd St. and Mary Stark, 19380 Eureka Ave, experienced a sewer back ups on May 15, 1998 as a result of a power outage and consequent non-functioning lift station. City insurance, LMC Trust, has denied liability, classifying it an "act of God." The City responded to Ms. Newberg'sIMs. Stark's allegations since the last Council meeting. Ms. Newberg further questioned the following: l)affording back-up generators at allIift stations; 2)getting records and information on tank capacity and service capacity of the Fairhills lift station; 3)100king into other City insurance providers who have a better record of satisfying legitimate claims; 4)developing a written emergency plan for public works employees during power outages; 5)having certifIed sewer and water operators on staff; 6)fmding the apparent stormwater inflow problems. Staff responded with assurances that providing back-up generators for lift stations are being researched; a written emergency plan will be developed; the public works department presently has a certifIed sewer and water operator, and has contracted services of neighboring cities' licensed operators when Farmington has been without; is looking at areas of possible inflow; and is working on providing for an extension to the upcoming construction of Middle Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer, which would eliminate the need for the Fairhills lift station, thus creating a gravity fed system serving this area. . Ms. Stark, 19380 Eureka Ave., still contends that the sewer back-up was not solely due to the power outage and questioned the conflict of interest that may be present for the City Engineer (employed by Bonestroo) and the City's consulting engineer being the same. Staff assured Ms. Stark that the City Engineer's loyalties are to the City, and that his status is not a conflict of interest, but rather a matter of integrity, trust and honesty. . b) Sharon Sibley, 5681 193rd St., was satisfIed with the City's response to their concerns of the last meeting. . c)Jason Elias, 19267 Euclid Path, clarifIed that his participation in the 6/15/98 meeting was to alert the City to the possible contamination of the wetland in Fairhills as a result of pumping the lift station on 5/15/98. He also felt it was gross negligence to continue to use defective hoses and poorly trained employees. 7. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Fitch, second by Gamer to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: a) Approved Council Minutes 6/15/98 (Regular), 6/16/98 (Special) b) Approved Appointment of Cynthia Muller as Executive Assistant c) Approved Billiard Permit for Rodney Cassedy, new owner of Farmington Billiards, 933 8th St. d) Waived the License Fee for the Chamber of Commerce Farmer's Market e) Adopted RESOLUTIONS R62-98 and R63-98 Approving a Gambling Premise Permit for the Longbranch Saloon and Eatery and Farmington Lanes. 7/6/98 Minutes Continued Page 2 1) Acknowledged the Sale of the Obsolete Rear Load Packer Truck g) Approved the Capital Outlay Purchase -Parks and Recreation- Purchase of a Vehicle h) Adopted RESOLUTION R61-98 Establishing a Re-inspection Fee for Temporary Certificates of Occupancy i) Approved a Capital Outlay for the Fire Department for the Purchase of Five Voice Pagers j) Approved Bills. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS - none. 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT a) Adopt Resolution - 2nd Street Parking Lot This item will be deferred to the 7/20/98 meeting since the bids came in slightly higher than estimated. Staff is looking for ways to reduce the cost of the project and obtain the written easement agreement from the railroad before the contract is awarded. 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS (taken in order listed) a) Adopt Resolution - Charleswood Final Plat Planning Coordinator Smick presented the plat consisting of 83 lots on 32.29 acres located south of 195th St. (CR 64) and west of the new Pilot Knob alignment. The property is zoned R-3 planned-unit development, single-family residential with setbacks slightly different from the City guidelines. The developer proposed a 5 foot setback for the garage side yard, 10 feet for the house side yard, 20 feet for front, rear and street side yards. MOTION by Fitch, second by Cordes to adopt RESOLUTION R59-98 Approving and Authorizing the signing of the Charleswood Final Plat with the contingencies outlined. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 1) Middle Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer - Fairhills Extension (moved up to accommodate audience participation) City Engineer/Public Works Director Mann explained that the bids for this trunk sewer came in well under the estimated costs and that it would be good timing to get a quote from the contractor for extending the trunk through Fairhills, thus eliminating the lift station that serves this area. MOTION by Fitch, second by Cordes, authorizing the staff to request a change order price quote; and if this quote is less than 25% of the bid, to proceed with negotiating temporary easements with the affected property owners. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Adopt Resolution - Charleswood Development Contract The Development Contract for Charleswood (Astra Genstar, Developer) has been drafted in accordance with the conditions presented at the July 6, 1998 Council meeting. Mr. Juetten was present to suggest some language revisions to the contract and to take issue with the level of responsibility his development would accept for the improvement needed for 195th Street. Administrator Erar explained that the Development Contracts have been designed to protect the City and the residents who will occupy this housing. These are standards for the benefit of the long-term taxpayer. MOTION by Gamer, second by Strachan to adopt RESOLUTION R60-98 Approving the Charleswood Development Contract contingent upon conditions agreed to by Council, staff, City Attorney, and the Developer. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Recess at 9:40 P.M. and reconvened at 9:50 P.M. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Developer Issues - (an addition to the agenda by the Mayor at the time of agenda approval and discussion moved up to accommodate the developers/builders present.) Eight developers and builders currently working in the City presented their case involving trust and communication issues. Warren Israelson of Progress Land Company, developer of Prairie Creek, was most upset by the action taken by the City when his Letter of Credit was partially drawn upon. He failed to fmish a punch list of items compiled by the Engineering Department, after ample warning was given, according to staff. Mr. Israelson's biggest complaint was the fact that the standards used by the Engineering Department to evaluate projects had changed recently since the new City Engineer had taken over. Developers who thought they were nearing completion, were given additional items to fix/complete. John Dobbs of Heritage Development reiterated that consistent rules were important, saying it was unfair to uphold them to new standards midstream; unwelcome attitude was perceived. Staff defended their position by explaining that the standards were not new, but rather items that were knowingly not done and were never effectively inspected. Tim Giles, T.C. Construction, complained about the high engineering bills submitted by the City and the 7/6/98 Minutes Continued Page 3 difficulty of getting inspections when needed. Builder Ken Anzec expressed his dismay at the inconsistencies; what is required and constant changing of the rules. Keith and Gary Horky of Keyland Homes feel that all the extra requirements have made it a [mancial hardship and staff could do more to work with builders as well. Staff said it was their intention to bring Farmington to the same level of standards as surrounding cities. Staff is very willing to work with developers if they show evidence of working toward completion, but if the City gets no communication, then there are consequences. Administrator Erar stressed that there was no miscommunication on the City's part in this matter; just complying with City policy. After three hours of discussion, it was decided to continue dialogue within the Task Force, a forum of developers and builders for working with staff on issues and problems. Councilmember Strachan left the meeting at 12:40 A.AI. Recess at 12:40 A.AI. and reconvened at 12:50 A.AI. 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS (resumed) c) Dakota County C.I.P. - City Recommendations Engineer Mann recommended the following projects be scheduled in the County's 1999-2003 CIP: 1999: CR 64 (195th St.) l/4 mile west of CSAH 31 to CSAH 31 1999: CR 72, TH 3 to east City limits 2000: CSAH 50, Division to TH 3 2000: CR 64 from CSAH 31 to TH 3. Staff was authorized to forward the recommended requests to the County for preparation of the Dakota County draft 1999-2003 CIP, adding the installation of traffic signals at 190th, 193rd and 195th Streets and Pilot Knob Road to the list as a reminder to the County. d) Draft Dakota County Transportation Policy Plan Update Any questions or concerns regarding the draft transportation plan as submitted in the agenda should be directed to Erar. e) Castle Rock Township Comprehensive Plan Amendment - City Comments Administrator Erar reviewed the Castle Rock Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was submitted to the Metropolitan Council and outlined some issues that make it inappropriate at this time. The issues involve the proposed commerciaVindustrial park in Section 5 south ofTH 50 adjacent to Fountain Valley Golf Course. A map identifies this area in question as having a high sensitivity to aquifer pollution; also a portion of this area is proposed for stormwater ponding in the Farmington's Stormwater Management Plan, additionally where run off has not been adequately planned for the proposed commerciaVindustrial development. This property is critical to the stormwater management of the area. MOTION by Fitch, second by Gamer, authorizing the submittal of these comments to the Metropolitan Council before Castle Rock's request to amend their Comprehensive Plan is reviewed. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (resumed) a) Randall House Demolition - Acknowledged by Council. b) Downtown Streetscape project - Neighborhood Meeting Feedback - Deferred until 7/20/98. 12. NEW BUSINESS a) Water shut-off policy - Revision - Deferred until 7/20/98. 13. ROUNDTABLE a) Weed Complaints - Acknowledged by Council. b) Kuchera Entrance Trail Damage - Acknowledged by Council. c) St. Paul Train Whistles - Deferred until 7/20/98. MOTION by Fitch, second by Gamer to adjourn at 1: 13 A.M. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, a~~~ ~e~e Stanek Secretary Special Joint City Council Meeting Ash Street/Castle Rock/Septic Systems July 7, 1998 Members Present: Ristow, Cordes, Fitch, Gamer, Strachan Members Absent: None 1. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 p.m. 2. County Commissioner Joe Harris recapped last meeting - Dakota County agreed to survey septic systems since water sample from the ditch at 6th and Ash Streets was contaminated. 3. Dakota County gave a report regarding the testing of the septic systems. Of 37 septic systems, 4 passed, 24 failed, rest undetermined. All drinking water wells were sampled and found to be uncontaminated. Water in ditches was re-tested, coliform levels have dropped since original test which would be consistent with the rainfall and pumping of the ditch. Other ditches along Ash Street and Trunk Highway 3 were sampled. Septic system test results for each owner have been sent out. 4. City reported on lift station. A dye test and verification that flow was coming from the force main show no indications at this time that the lift station is leaking. 5. Residents asked questions regarding the lift station, recent pumping of the lift station and the testing of the lift station. 6. Castle Rock indicated their willingness to cooperate to resolve the issues. The township did indicate that they would not be willing to allow the commercial area along Highway 50 to come into City and a joint powers agreement would need to be arranged in order to service those properties. 7. Residents asked about time frame to resolve the situation, County said they wouldn't force a quick solution in light of the possible long term solution that could be provided by the Ash Street project. 8. The County indicated that it couldn't guarantee that the Ash Street project could be funded as a 1999 project, probably in 2000 is a better guarantee, but that the Commissioner's would certainly take a look at trying to get it in the 1999 CIP. 9. Resident comments: a. Eugene Thurmes - Don't take fence away. b. Ron Thelen - Thinks project should go ahead, it has been looked at for many years. 10. City Administrator Erar went over County Ordinance to discuss imminent health threat. . . , . 11. County replied that the failing system must be upgraded in 10 months after a compliance inspection. 12. Erar discussed the City pumping the ditch, who would be responsible for costs? 13. County suggested not to pump unless levels were high, and flooding is possible. It was agreed by all parties to leave the fence up around the ditches at 6th and Ash. 14. The Farmington City Council and Castle Rock Township Board committed to finding a solution to the situation within 60 days, and that this effort needs to include Dakota County Fair Board and Dakota County Extension Service, as well as Dakota County. 15. Resident comments: a. Dykstra's want to be included. b. Wilson's - What legal recourse do residents have to force the City and Township to do the project? Castle Rock responded that legal action could be initiated by Castle Rock against residents. c. Darlene Grabowski - Wants the situation resolved in the 60 days. 16. It was agreed upon by all parties that no township development on Highway 50 would occur until negotiations are complete and a solution to the problem is found. 17. The Township agreed that from west of Highway 3 the properties could be annexed into the City. East of Highway 3 - the Township would like to negotiate whether these properties would have to come into the City. 18. The City Council and Castle Rock Board agreed to review issues and come back together. Castle Rock suggested forming a committee might help to get the process going quicker. The City Council and Township Board agreed to have the first committee meeting on July 22, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. 19. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ~ ?};; TO: Mayor, Councilmembers City Administrator ~ James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director FROM: SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Accepting Donations DATE: July 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION Donations have been received at the Senior Center, DISCUSSION The Farmington Middle School Student Council has donated $500 to the Senior Center. The money was raised through a three day "Penny War". These funds will be used for furnishings at the Senior Center. The Faith United Methodist Church has also donated $100 to the Senior Center Meals On Wheels Program. Staff will communicate the City's appreciation on behalf of the Council to the organizations for their generous donations, ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution accepting the donation of $500 from the Farmington Middle School and $100 from the Faith United Methodist Church. Respectfully submitted, ._-.~ > ) , '\ -') " '-..)(".A--"''.._- jL.5<..../. James Bell Parks and Recreation Director I CitlJ of FarminiJ.ton 325 Oak Street · Farmintjtonl MN 55024 · (612) 463-7111 · Fax (612) 463-2591 RESOLUTION No. R -98 ACCEPTING DONATIONS TO THE SENIOR CENTER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 20th day of July, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member ------ introduced and Member ----- seconded the following: WHEREAS, the Farmington Middle School "Penny War" has donated $500 to be used for furnishings at the Senior Center and the Faith United Methodist Church has donated $100 to be used for the Meals On Wheels Program at the Senior Center; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to accept such donations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington hereby accepts the generous donation of $500 from the Farmington Middle School "Penny War" and $100 from the Faith United Methodist Church to be used as stated above. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 20th day of July, 1998. Mayor Attested to the 20 th day of July, 1998. City Administrator SEAL 7c::- FROM: Mayor & Councilmembers City Administrator~ Robin Roland Finance Director TO: SUBJECT: Capital Outlay Request- Public Works DATE: July 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION The Public Works Department has requested the purchase of a replacement pick-up truck. DISCUSSION The Public Works Department is currently operating without one of their pick-up trucks due to the failure of that vehicle's engine and transmission. The vehicle in question is a 1986 with 106,000 miles. Cost to repair this vehicle's engine and transmission exceed the value of the vehicle and would not guarantee a significant extension to the vehicle's operational cycle. Although it is not a 1998 budgeted item, staff has requested acquisition of a replacement vehicle in the Public Works department. Written quotes have been received on comparable three quarter ton pick-up trucks from three vendors. The low quote is from Jeff Belzer's Chevrolet at $18,700. BUDGET IMPACT Funding of this vehicle acquisition is available through the Sewer Operating Fund and will be included in the budget re-appropriations made in November. ACTION REQUIRED For Council's information. ~4/ I Robin Roland Finance Director CitlJ of Farmint).ton 325 Oak Street · Farmintjtonl MN 5502~ · (612) ~63.7111 · FaJr (612) ~63.2591 9fL TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator ~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: A ward Contract - 2nd Street Parking Lot DATE: July 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION Bids were received for the 2nd Street Parking Lot on Thursday, July 2nd, 1998. DISCUSSION Bituminous Roadways Inc. has submitted the low bid in the amount of$214, 471.00. Due to minor changes to the scope of the project and higher bids than were anticipated, the construction and easement costs for the project are higher than estimated in the feasibility report. Staff has contacted the contractor who submitted the low bid and he has agreed to delete $44,587.50 of the work of which $12,625 would be a cost savings to the City. The remaining deleted amount of $33,962 is for the lighting which the City will contract with NSP for the same cost. The advantage of contracting the lighting with NSP is that for a small monthly fee, NSP will provide all maintenance for the lights. A change order reflecting these deletions will be forwarded for signature with the contract documents. The revised construction costs for the project (with the aforementioned deletions) based on the bid would be $201,846. It is recommended that the City provided engineering, legal and administrative costs be contributed to the project without reimbursement in order to lower the costs to the Road and Bridge Fund and the HRA Special Revenue Fund. With those costs contributed without reimbursement, the total estimated project cost would be $235,000. The estimate from the feasibility report was $261,000. BUDGET IMPACT The storm water improvements would be funded out of the Storm Water Fund and the funding for the parking lot improvements would be split between the Road and Bridge Fund and the HRA Special Revenue Fund. The breakdown would be as follows: Storm Water Fund $51,300 Road and Bridge Fund $91,850 HRA Special Revenue Fund $91,850 I Citlj. of FarminfJton 325 Oak Street · Farmintjtonl MN 55024 · (612) 463.7111 · Fax (612) 463.2591 ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution accepting the base bid of Bituminous Roadways Inc. in the amount of $214,471.00. Respectfully submitted, ;Z:>>1~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Proposed RESOLUTION NO. R -98 AWARD CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. 98-01 SECOND STREET PARKING LOT Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Civic Center of said City on the 20th day of July, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the Second Street Parking Lot, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: Contractor Total Base Bid Bituminous Roadways .......................$214,471.00 McNamara Contracting............. .........$219,853 .00 Max Steininger, Inc. ...........................$222, 156.00 Jay Bros..... .............................. ......... ..$277,281.74 ; and WHEREAS, it appears the firm of Bituminous Roadways, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. The base bid of Bituminous Roadways, Inc., a Minnesota corporation for $214,471.00 is hereby accepted and awarded and the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract therefore. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 20th day of July, 1998. Attested to the 20th day of July, 1998. Mayor SEAL Clerk! Administrator ~f ~g tN ~QO S8: ~~ ~ ~ ;: .ff~ ~ ~j:l.,Z r:E-oO 'S~~s ~ = ... ~ Ul"'-lo ~~ ~< ~s !~ E-o B ~ ;> !!i .~ ~ .l:l .l:l -s ~ ~ S llIl l:: ... = .... ~ e !Q oS ,.. ... ~ ~ " .., " ... .ij .. .~ " II:: ~g~~gg~gggggggggggggggggggggggg~~ggggg~gg~gg~ ~o~~ci~~cidciciocim~MMd~~ciciddciddcidcidNNd~d~~~ciciNMm. 70NOOm~~OO~OOM.NNm~~~O~~~V~VNOO~~~~~~V~m~NN.O ~ ...~ ~ &I). ~; co. ~ M. t: tt ~ O. U'J. ~ q "': ~ ~ ~ r--: ~ ~ "!. ~ O. CD. ctt ~ t; ~ ~ .. .. .. ~ "!. ~ II!. ~ ~ (0. ~ ~ .. ~~;~ ; ~ ~"~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~;~ ~ ~ ~ ;~i~~ r<l'" ............ ...... ... ::: - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ;g~~g~"~~~~g~~~~~~~~m~N~~~~g~~g~~~~~~~:~~~~m ~~ ~ ~~"~q """ *~*W ~**~ ....~~* ~~~ !;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~... ... OZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0 ~qqqqqqqqqqqqqqq~qqqqqqqqqqqqqq~qqqqqq~q~qqq 0 ~~ll)gg~~~8~~gg8~g~~~g~~g~~~~~g~~~~g~~g~~~~gg8G ~CD~NCON~_m~Nll)ll)CDCD~~m~M~OU)O"'ll)MMON~MN_*~G~.~.Gom~ ~;;~.,.;** "'~;~~~==="'~~~;~~~;m;~*~* _~_~M~~~~~ a:: .,. .,..,. .. ..... ~ ~ ~U ~~~OOOOOOOOOOCOOOO~OOOOOOOOO~oooo~gooooo~~~OOO ~ -O~~O~OOOOOOOO~o~~~o~mooo~~OOOO~ OOOOON~COOO ~ ~~~Nci~N~ci~cici~~~~~~NN~~cici~~Nci~~cici~ci~~ci~~Ncicicici ~ E~""a ..~~~~~.. "..~~_...,.;~~...,.~~~~.,...~~~~ "''''''~~i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;; OZooogooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ~qq~ .~~~~qq~q~qqq~qq~qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq8 ~g~~g~~gg~~gggg~~~~~~~o~~g~go~g~~g~~~~~~~~go~ ~qq~:::;;~~~;;~~q~~q~~~~~~~~~~~q~~~~...;;...~~~~~~~~~= ~~;~ ~; ~;~~~~=~ ~~~;~~~;~ ~ ~ ;~~~~ f;I1 .,..". .,. .. ;. ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~O=O~~g~~OO~ogN~~~m~NNmN.~~~MO~~OOOOOO~~MNOOOO UE~"; ~~;~~.. ..~~...,..,.;~.. ..~~;~...,.~~~~;.,..,..,.~!! ~ ~ ~ ::: ~ CD 1 ~gggg8~gggg8g~88888~88ggggggg88g8ggggggg~g88g ~g~;g~~gggg~g~~gg~~~gg~~~g~ggigggg~g~~~g~~~g~...~ ~~~~~:::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~q~~~~q~~~~~~.........~~a~~~~~~ ~~;; ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~;~~~~~; ~ ~ ;~~~~ .,. .,..,..,..,. .,. ;. rg~ ~o ~ ~~oog~oo~~oooooo~~oooo~oooooo~ooooooooooooo~ooo ou ,- '-I-COOOO~~~OO~~~~~~O~ONO~~ONNOOOO~~~~OOO ~~~ciMNci~~cicicici~~m~~m~N~~N~~~ci~ci~mcicici~~ci~~M~ci~ci~ f~"'''~ "~~~g~""''';''~~''''''';~~; ~~~~"'''~~~~;'''''''~m~ ~~ ... .........~ ... ~... ...~ ......M ~g I--- !; OO>~<>~<<<OOOO~>>OZ>OZOZ~~~~<>>>U~<OO~~<<<OO~~~~<<< ~ ~OO~WOOOOWWW~~~UU~U~~~~OOOOWOOUOO<OOW~~~WWW~~~~~WWW 00 0 00000000000 ogO 0 00 000 ~~~Ngm~.~~~o~R~~~~~~~~~~ ~~.re~~~N~~~~~O~~~~ ~. G ~~~~~MN~~~~ ~~N N NN ~NN wW 11. WOO OO~~ ~ ~ OO~ ~~~ ~ 00 ~~ ~- OOU ~ ~ ~O w w ~~~OO ~UU~m ~ ~ 5lli w ~~~ ~~~~ ~w~~u~~~ ~ 0000 00 ~ W~OC ~~~~~ ~~ ~mQwl1.z ~o ~ ~ ~~~~w~~oomw ~m ~~~O~O~~~ 0 ~ z ~ >~w~o~~x~~~ oooooow~w~~U~-ool1. ~~ ~ - l1.<m8~wllilliww~~ z ~~oo~~~~~z~~~o~zz ~g ~ 5 ~->~~~W~U~ 0 0 ~ ~u< ~ ~~ - ~ z w ~a~~~~~~~~aQ~~=~~~5~~~~~~~~~ i~ ~w 58 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EE~<:~ffi~~~g~~~5~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~U~~~~OO~I1.~<UW~mm ~o>O-~O~~~~~~~~UzOI1. ~ e ~~~z~~~~o~~oou~~z~~~aw~~~~OOg~~~~~~<gm~~ww~ ~m~8m~~~~~~5~~~ffi~~5~~j~~g~~;;8~~~~~~lli~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~8~~~ mo-~~~~~~~~~g2~~~~~~2~~~~~~5~~~~~~ta~~~~~~~~~m wwwwwwwwWWCO~~WMMCOOWOOoOw~~~ W-I1.W~~~~OO~~ ___~~~~~~~~~~~mUOOUOONNmuu~Uu~moo~~~~~~~OOOO~~__I1.I1.~~ ~ ~ggggggggg:;gggg F;i.oMofticioC'lioaiC"<iocicici Zm;;;a;~:;m~~.~gg:g~ ~.........ri<DNri~""':"'ri"': ~ --.......... .... .... ~ ...... <Ii o ~ = ~ .... >- ~OCOOOOOOOOOOOOO UO"'f'fDCOOOOOONiNO't""O ~.,;..tN:!ciciNciN"":rici"":ci ~~~~l\~~~.~i5".."~ ~ .....NNM I' 13 ............ ... ~gggggggggggggg ~zggggggggg~g~gg 8 ~ 0_,...... 0.. ~ O'J_ q ...-.. N.. ~ ~ ~ N.. ~~~~~~~ .... ~; ... ~ ~u ~~~oooooooooooooo fii uOooooooooooooo ~ ~cici~mdddcicici~Nmd c:liOONNOOOV)OO.,."-"'O ...._ V) N .. .. iN ("') 0 .... ..- N .. N -.... ............ .. I; ~~NCIl ~ 13 ............ ... OZoooooooooooooo a ~~C!~~q~~~C!C!~~C!~ 0 ~oooV)ooooomV)ooo _ ~O_ONQ'JCOO~(",)N"""OOO ~ V)("')m_om(",)_M~MMom ~ ~~~6i~~~i"~;"~~ :: ...... .. ~~ E:i~~oooooooooov)ooo .....000&1)000000'"'-000 ~OU~ciri..t"":";ciciciciciNciNci """ O.........'OtNOCllNi...~~O ..., V)N..IltO(l')(W')....N ....co 1;";'" ...:...:N..... ...: 13'" ............ ... OZoooooooooooooo oOV)ll)OOOOOOoooo F;ivid"":"":d&rici,,;oMaridcici ~~~~~~~..~~il~~a~~ ~~~&t~..~ ..fit 1i~ ... ~g ~- ~MOOU')U')OOOOOOIl)OOO O-OONNOOOOOONO&nO _u~.,;.,;..twci.,;ci.,;ci";Nciwci _~SZiN"NNU').....mNCOCO"-"O ..._ lI) _ .. .. 0 Il) co CD ..... iN .. 0 -..... .........,... .. I; ~~~N N 13 ............ ... ~g ~~~~N...~~~~~~~~ i--- ~ i5~~~i5i5i5i5~~~i5~~ - Il:: ww l!! ...J...J S 00 W J:J: Ul zz ::E Cl << Il::Il:: zClClCl::E::E o~ ~~~~~~ Iii < UlUlUlD.D. u<<<ww ~Ulww~UUUcc :><: i=~~~~~~~~~ U !QO--"'J:J:J:I-~ ~t: ~1ii~~~::E::E::E~~ ~~ OUUlf!}ZIl::Il::Il::Il::Il:: WW I->~::J_wwww~w ...JD. l-?-uu~tutututuwUl3i=C lrl~D.D.~~~~~~ffi<i!~~ z:><:uuu-----LLm~1l:: z()~~....~;:_~~?....>-o::! 0<U'>CIl<CIl0NCIlN:::!<. < _U"""-T""()~co,......,........cn:r...a: ~ :t to: .. .. ~ .. 8 c:i ~ : 8 ~ ! ~ e ! II) I I e II) ~ ~ t:: ~ U'> N . :il~ ~~~~ -, ~ ~ ~~~~~ ::I! ,..O.'3N ~~1iiq; ~ u. ~ ~ ... N' a u~_ C-N ~i~~~ ~.!'R~~ ~-j!l ,,'f U) ." N lil ~ i'u; ::I!....w :il ~ ~ '" ti l! ;i~!>: fi~(/)z"", ?;l<fi::l!"; 2o~'E~ c;_::I"f ~~~~~ ?i ~ ::I! i ~ ~ .... ... . r::: ti ~~~ "-2 ~ i;'~ ::I!'8 il~li i!l~:I:N ~~:il~u; 15:1 "" IS o ~ a ~ ~ ~ tl ~ ... . l. .~... jOct- TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administratorf~ (\ () Lee Smick, j)Y Planning Coordinator FROM: SUBJECT: Prairie Creek East PUD EA W Response to Comments, Findings of Fact and Record of Decision DATE: July 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) was prepared for the Prairie Creek East PUD pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes. DISCUSSION The EA W is a brief document prepared in a worksheet format, that is designed as a streamlined assessment approach to determine the environmental effects that may be associated with a proposed project. The EA W serves primarily to aid in the determination of whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed for a proposed project; and serves as a basis to begin the scoping process for an EIS. The EA W review is triggered because of the 250 or more unattached units within the Prairie Creek East PUD. In the EA W process, the Environmental Quality Board assigns the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) in verifying the accuracy of environmental documents and complying with the environmental review processes in a timely manner. The RGU for the Prairie Creek East PUD is the Farmington City Council. Therefore, the Record of Decision is approved by the City Council through a resolution. Three types of decisions could be made concerning the EA W: 1. 2. 3. make a positive declaration, requiring an EIS for the project postpone the decision because of lack of information or make a negative declaration, stating that the project does not have a potential significant environmental effect that warrants the preparation of an EIS. ..... After a project has been filed with the Environmental Quality Board, the project is sent to over 20 agencies to review the effects of the project on the environment. The agencies have 30 days to review the project and make comments concerning how the project might impact the environment. Citlj. of Farmint)ton 325 Oak Street · Farmint)tonl MN 5502~ · (612) ~63.7111 · Fax (612) ~63.2591 . . The comments are then assembled by the RGU after the 30-day comment period and the RGU has 30 days to respond to the comments. In the case of the Prairie Creek East development, the comment period ended on March 25, 1998. Seven written comments were received by the City concerning the EA Wand those agencies included: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates, Empire Township - Bolton & Menk Engineers, Dakota County Soil & Water Conservation District and the Vermillion Watershed Management Organization. After reviewing comment letters received for the EA W, the City determined that additional information was required from the proposer to make a Decision of Need for an EIS. Therefore, the City requested a 30-day extension to April 24, 1998 to allow the proposer to provide the requested information. There were three additional 30-day extensions to receive additional requested information and review the information from the proposer, Progress Land Company, that have delayed the deadline for the EA W decision to July 24, 1998. The proposer revised the original EA W in June to meet the requests of the reviewing agencies. Additional comments have been received from the reviewing agencies concerning the revised EA W, however, these comments relate to stormwater and floodplain issues and do not involve the EA W Decision of Need. The stormwater and floodplain issues along with other engineering comments will be dealt with at the platting and permitting stages (see attached comments). It should be noted, however, that the Prairie Creek East development and a proposed development directly to the south will generate an approximate total of 588 single family homes, and if these developments were proposed together, a mandatory EIS would be required. Therefore, it is crucial to observe that there are additional comments that must be resolved by the Prairie Creek East's proposer during the platting and permitting stages. On May 12, 1998, the Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation to the City Council concerning the Prairie Creek East Schematic PUD. Reasons for the negative recommendation included the need to make a decision because the 60-day time period was about to expire to review the Schematic Plan and additional information concerning the EA W was not completed by the proposer and not available at this meeting. Other concerns included the topography and layout of the Schematic Plan. Based on the EA W, the response to comments and the Findings of Fact, the Record of Decision concludes the following: 1. The EA W was prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act and Minnesota Rules, Parts 4410.1000 t 4410.1700 (1997). 2. The EA W satisfactorily addressed all of the issues for which existing information could have been reasonably obtained, 3. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects, 4. Based on a review of the record prepared in this matter, the City makes a "Negative Declaration," and 5. An EIS is not required. J . 6. The City of Farmington is directed to maintain a Record of Decision including the Response to Comments on the EA W and to notify in writing all persons on the EA W distribution list, all persons that commented in writing during the 30-day comment period and to any person upon written request. ACTION REOUESTED Adopt a resolution to approve the Response to Comments, Findings of Fact and Record of Decision for the Prairie Creek East PUD contingent upon the following: 1. The proposer revise the Prairie Creek East PUD Schematic Plan to show the first phase of the development and illustrate the remaining acreage as R-l PUD Single-Family Residential - Planned Unit Development. 2. The proposer respond to the latest comments by the reviewing agencies concerning stormwater, floodplain and engineering issues during the platting and permitting stages of the project and understand that further issues may become apparent and must be handled through the regulatory process. Respectfully submitted, ~ i Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE PRAIRIE CREEK EAST RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) JUNE 1998 RGU City of Farmington Mr. David L. Olson Community Development Director 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Phone (612) 463-1860 FAX (612) 463-2591 CONSULTANT Westwood Professional Services, Inc. Attn.: Rob Bouta 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Phone (612) 937-5150 FAX (612) 937-5822 PROPOSER Progress Land Company, Inc. Mr. Warren Israelson 6001 Egan Drive, Suite 100 Savage, MN 55378 Phone (612) 226-3200 FAX (612) 226-3201 CITY OF FARMINGTON RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE PRAIRIE CREEK EAST RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) JUNE, 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1 COM M ENTS RECEIVED ....... .......................... ..... .............. .......... ......... ...... ...............................2 RESPONSE TO COM M ENTS ........ ..... ............................ ........... ..... ......... ............... ......... .......... 2 Wetlands and Ditch Reconstruction Comments................................................................. 3 Floodplain Comments...........................................................................................................8 Stormwater Management Comments ..................................................................................9 M un icipal Planning Comments. ................. ................. ............. ............. ............................. 10 FI N DI NGS OF FACT ....... ........................ .......... ........... ................ ............ .......... ....... ............... 11 Project Description ... .......................... ................ ............... .................................... ............. 11 Proposed Project............................................................................................................... 11 Site Description and Existing Conditions ....................................................... ....... ............. 11 Criteria Used in Deciding Whether the Project has the Potential for Significant Envi ronmental Effects ............... ................. ............. ............... .............. ....... ...... ......... ........ 12 Criteria A: Type, Extent, and Reversibility Of Environmental Effects ................................ 12 Criteria B: Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects........... 13 Criteria C: Extent to Which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation............... 13 Criteria D: Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled...... 14 RECORD OF DECISION ................ ....................... .... ................................. .............................. 15 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Prairie Creek East Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) INTRODUCTION An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) was prepared for the Prairie Creek East Residential Development pursuant to Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.4300 Subp. 19.D. The Prairie Creek East Residential Development is proposed by Progress Land Company and will involve construction of 407 single family residential lots on 160 acres situated in the Southeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 114 North, Range 20 West, City of Farmington, Minnesota. The EA Wand the respective comments have been reviewed in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.1700 to determine if the project has potential for significant environmental effects. This document includes responses to comments received by the City of Farmington, the Findings of Fact supporting the decision, and the Record of Decision indicating an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not necessary for this project. In accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.1500, the EA W was completed and distributed on February 9, 1998 to all persons and agencies on the official Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties. The notification was published in the EQB Monitor on February 23, 1998, initiating the 30-day public comment period. A press release was submitted for publication in the Farmington Independent newspaper. The comment period ended on March 25, 1998. Several commenting agencies raised issues of concern that the City of Farmington determined needed to be addressed. In order to resolve these issues, the 30-day period allowed for a decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement was extended. The original deadline for this decision was April 24, which was 30 days after the end of the comment period. Three 30-day extensions have delayed the deadline for the decision. In order to address the concerns raised by commenting agencies, the project proposer has compromised and made a number of project design revisions to reduce and mitigate for potential environmental effects. These changes include: . Reduction of the number of single family lots proposed from 415 to 407. . Elimination of the proposal to extend the ditch east into Empire Township. . Elimination of the proposal to reconstruct 9.7 acres of wetland in the area of Basin A associated with the ditch that drains southeast through the site. . Reduction of the wetland fill and excavation within the 160-acre site that is directly associated with project development from approximately 3.0 to 1.98 acres. . Expansion of the proposed stormwater ponding area to be developed in upland from 1.8 to 3.81 acres, and reduction of stormwater ponding to be excavated in wetland from 1.5 to 0.66 acres. Total pond area has been expanded from 3.3 to 4.47 acres. PAGE 1 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Prairie Creek East Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) COMMENTS RECEIVED Seven written comments were received by the City prior to the March 25 deadline. Comments were received from the following sources: No. Letter on behalf of Drafted by Date Abbreviation 1. City of Farmington Anthony R. DeMars, Bonestroo March 7, 1998 BRAA Rosene Anderlik Associates 2. Metropolitan Council Helen Boyer, Director, March 9, 1998 MC Environmental Services Division 3. Minnesota Department of Scott Peters, Senior March 10, 1998 Mn/DOT Transportation Transportation Planner 4. Minnesota Department of Thomas W. Balcom, March 20, 1998 DNR Natural Resources Environmental Review and Assistance Unit 5. Dakota County Soil and Brian Watson and Jay Riggs March 23, 1998 SWCD Water Conservation District 6. Vermillion River Cynthia Adams, Montgomery March 23, 1998 VRWMO Watershed Management Watson Organization 7. Empire Township Ronald A. Roetzel, P.E., March 25, 1998 EMP Township Engineer, Bolton & Menk, Inc. Copies of the written comments are attached to the end of this document. Two of the seven comment letters (Met Council and DNR) indicated that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not warranted for this project. One comment letter (MnlDOT) stated that the EA W is acceptable. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Similarities in comments submitted by different agencies were apparent for a number of issues. In order to minimize redundancy, the comments and responses are arranged according to four primary issues: 1. Wetlands and Ditch Reconstruction 2. Floodplains 3. Stormwater Management 4. Municipal Planning Responses are often confined to substantive issues that "address the accuracy and completeness of the material contained in the EA W, potential impacts that may warrant further investigation before the project is commenced, and the need for an EIS on the proposed project," as set forth under Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410.1600. Comments and recommendations that do not address these areas have been duly noted for the record and are not necessarily specifically addressed in the responses. PAGE 2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Prairie Creek East Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Wetlands and Ditch Reconstruction Comments No. Issue/Comments Agencies/Individuals 1. The EAW included a discrepancy in the total wetland and ditch DNR acreage for the site (18.4 vs. 19.4 acres). 2. Ditch reconstruction should be reviewed to ensure that it will not DNR, BRAA impact the hydrology of DNR Protected Wetland 19-352W (aka Lake Julia), including the groundwater component of wetland hydrology. 3. Wetland replacement (mitigation) should be shown on the plan. DNR, BRAA, SWCD, Mitigation and sequencing should be scrutinized by the TEP. VRWMO 4. The depth of the seasonal high water table in Marshan silty clay MC loam soils is 1 to 2.5 feet. Reconstruction of the central drainage ditch might not lower the seasonal water table. 5. Wetland Basin C is classified as a "Protect" wetland in the City of VRWMO Farmington Surface Water Management Plan, and as a "Restore/Utilize" wetland in the EAW. The discrepancy needs resolution. 6. Impacts of ditch reconstruction and extension into Empire VRWMO Township are unclear. 7. The amount of wetland fill and excavation proposed should be VRWMO broken down by wetland type and basin. 8. Alterations of wetland Basins A, B, and C could be considered DNR, SWCD avoidable if the project included bridge construction or fewer streets and lots. 9. Excavation of the ditch bottom in Empire Township by more than 6 EMP, VRWMO inches will require a Grading Permit from Empire Township Responses 1. The EAW included a discrepancy in the total wetland and ditch acreage for the site (18.4 vs. 19.4 acres). DNR The correct total wetland acreage estimate is 18.4 acres. The EA W contained a mathematical error and should have estimated the area of proposed wetland reconstruction at 9.7 acres rather than 10.7 acres. As a result of the revisions made in the design by the project proposer, the area of wetland reconstruction has been reduced from 9.7 to 0.0 acres. PAGE 3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Prairie Creek East Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) 2. Ditch reconstruction should be reviewed to ensure that it will not impact the hydrology of DNR Protected Wetland 19-352W (aka Lake Julia), including the groundwater component of wetland hydrology. DNR,BRAA As a result of recent project design revisions, ditch reconstruction is no longer proposed and no effect on the hydrology ofDNR Protected Wetland 19-352W is anticipated. Reconstruction of the ditch through the Prairie Creek East property was to be designed to maintain existing water levels in the northwestern portion of the site near the DNR Protected wetland, but would have lowered water levels in the ditch in the eastern portion of the site. Based on this information, no impacts on the hydrology ofthe DNR Protected Wetland were expected prior to the recent design revision. 3. Wetland replacement (mitigation) should be shown on the plan. Mitigation and sequencing should be scrutinized by the TEP. DNR, BRAA, SWCD, VRWMO The project proposer has submitted that wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable in project design, given the project purpose. The current Proposed Plan includes 407 single family lots, reduced from 415 lots shown in the EA W Concept Plan, and from 440 lots shown on the Initial Concept Plan. These design revisions have reduced the effects on wetlands (wetland excavation for stormwater ponding and wetland fill) from 3.0 to 1.98 acres since publication of the EA W. The two Alternative Site Plans will be discussed in more detail in the project proposer's Wetland Permits Application. The DNR, BWSR, SWCD, VRWMO, MPCA, USFWS, and EP A will have additional opportunity to review and comment on the project during the processing of the wetland permit application, which will include additional information on wetland sequencing. The Concept Plan included as Exhibit 2 in the EA W showed the location proposed for approximately 3 acres of wetland replacement. Design revisions have been incorporated into the Wetland Replacement Plan recently submitted to the City by the project proposer, which shows 2.01 acres of wetland creation (New Wetland Credit) in two wetland basins to compensate for 1.32 acres of wetland fill and 0.66 acre of wetland excavation for stormwater ponding. The project includes a total of 3.81 acres of stormwater pond construction on upland, which when multiplied by 0.75, yields 2.86 acres of Public Value Credit. Requirements under the Wetland Conservation Act include 1.32 acres of New Wetland Credit (NWC) and 1.32 acres of Public Value Credit (pVC). The project exceeds this requirement by 0.69 acre ofNWC and 1.54 acre ofPVC. The wetland replacement (NWC) will exceed the 1 to 1 replacement required by the Corps of Engineers by 0.03 acre. As shown by the following table, all wetland replacement designs will meet Wetland Conservation Act requirements. Slopes below created wetland edges will not exceed 10:1 and in most cases will be 20:1 or more gradual. Slopes within one to two feet above created wetland edges will not exceed 5:1 and many of these slopes will be 10:1 or more gradual. As shown on the following table, the created wetland area is expected to be approximately 50 percent Type 2 wetland and 50 percent Type 3 wetland. Areas above water levels within and immediately adjacent to the wetland replacement areas will be seeded with a native grass and wildflower seed mixture similar to the one shown on the following page. PAGE 4 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Prairie Creek East Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Wetland Replacement Design Characteristics for Prairie Creek East Wetland Total Area Below NWL Area Above NWL Slopes Above Slopes Below Replacement Area (Type 3 Wetland) (Type 2 Wetland) Wetland Edge Wetland Edge Basin (acres) (acres) (acres) A 1.35 0.64 0.71 10:1 to 20:1 25:1 to 60:1 B 0.66 0.36 0.30 6:1 to 9:1 12:1 to 20:1 Total 2.01 1.00 1.01 NATIVE GRASS AND WILDFLOWER SEED MIX AND APPLICATION RATES FOR WETLAND REPLACMENT SEEDING NOTES 1. WITHIN 72 HOURS AFTER COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING, THE NATIVE MIX SHALL BE SEEDED ON DISTURBED SOILS ABOVE WATER LEVELS AROUND STORMWATER PONDS AND WETLANDS. SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH TYPE I MULCH AT A RATE OF 2 TONS PER ACRE AND THE MULCH SHALL BE DISC-ANCHORED. TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING BEDS (SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN) MAY BE LEFT UNSEEDED. 2. NATIVE GRASS AND WILDFLOWER SEED MATERIALS SHALL BE ACQUIRED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SEEDING MANUAL FOR NA T/VE SEED MIXES - MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT A T/ON 1995/96 (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TURF ESTABLISHMENT AND EROSION PREVENTION UNIT, 1995) AND THE STANDARD SPECIFICA T/ONS FOR CONSTRUCT/ON, 1995 EDITION (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,1995). 3. THE SEED MIX AND APPLICATION RATES SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED BELOW. RATE TABLE COMMON NAME Grasses Big bluestem Blue joint grass Canada wild rye Switchgrass Little bluestem Indian grass Wildflowers Swamp milkweed New England aster Green bulrush Joe pye weed Ox-eye sunflower Prairie blazingstar Wild bergamot Woolgrass Yellow coneflower Black-eyed Susan Blue vervain Giant bur-reed Nurse Crop Oats BOTANICAL NAME APPLICATION RATE Pounds Pure Live Seed/Acre 6.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 6.0 Ounces Bulk Seed/Acre 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 Pounds Bulk Seed/Acre 40.0 Andropogon gerardi Calamagrostis canadensis Elymus canadensis Panicum virgatum Schizachyrium scoparium Sorghastrum nutans Asclepias incamata Aster novae-angliae Scirpus atrovirens Eupatorium maculatum Heliopsis pycnostachya Liatris pycnostachya Monarda fistulosa Scirpus cyperinus Ratibia pinnata Rudbeckia hirta Verbena hastata Sparganum eurycarpum PAGE 5 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Prairie Creek East Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) 4. The depth of the seasonal high water table in Marshan silty clay loam soils is 1 to 2.5 feet. Reconstruction of the central drainage ditch might not lower the seasonal water table. Me The City and the project proposer appreciate the concern raised by Metropolitan Council regarding the seasonal high water table. Metropolitan Council accurately stated the depth to the seasonal high water table as reflected in the soil series description for Marshan silty clay loam contained in the Soil Survey of Dakota County, Minnesota (USDA, 1983). The Dakota County Soil Survey also shows that Marshan silty clay loam is the dominant on the site. However, the County Soil Survey also shows large areas of Marshan silty clay loam mapped in developed residential areas located to the west and northwest of the proposed development, and this demonstrates that development is feasible. The project proposer recognizes that fill will be required in certain areas to bring basement floor elevations above the water level. Basement elevations will be at least one foot above 100-year flood elevations, and finished back yards will be at least four feet above 100- year flood elevations. The 100-year flood elevations are higher than the seasonal high water table elevations on the site. Therefore, the proposed residential homes will be elevated an adequate distance above both the flood elevations and the water table elevations. 5. Wetland Basin C is classified as a "Protect" wetland in the City of Farmington Surface Water Management Plan, and as a "Restore/Utilize" wetland in the EAW. The discrepancy needs resolution. VRWMO This issue was resolved during an interagency field review on April 14, 1998, which involved representatives from the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District, Bonestroo Rosene Aderlik Associates, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These parties agreed that the Surface Water Management Classification of both isolated wetlands on the site (Basins Band C) should be Manage-2. This classification is intended to reflect the sensitivity of the wetland to stormwater inputs. The Manage-2 classification is intermediate between the Protect and RestorelUtilize classifications, which were discussed in the EA W. 6. Impacts of ditch reconstruction and extension into Empire Township are unclear. VRWMO In response to concerns expressed by various review agencies, the project proposer has revised the project design to eliminate the need for ditch reconstruction through the site and the extension of the ditch into Empire Township. The current project design neither requires nor proposes these activities. 7. The amount of wetland fill and excavation proposed should be broken down by wetland type and basin. VRWMO Proposed wetland fill and excavation is broken down by wetland basin and type in the following table. These estimates reflect revisions in the project design since publication of the EA W, which have reduced the total wetland fill from 1.5 to 1.32 acres, and the total wetland excavation for stormwater ponding from 1.5 to 0.66 acres. Wetland reconstruction excavation has been reduced from 9.7 to 0.0 acres due to project design revisions since publication ofthe EA W. PAGE 6 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Prairie Creek East Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Wetland Fill and Excavation Proposed for Prairie Creek East Basin Type Size Fill Stormwater Wetland (Acres) (Acres) Excavation Avoidance (Acres) (Acres) A 1/2/3/6 17.3 0.76 0.00 16.54 B 1/2/3 0.56 0.56 0.00 0.00 C 1/2 0.66 0.00 0.66 0.00 Total 18.52 1.32 0.66 16.54 8. Alterations of wetland Basins A, B, and C could be considered avoidable if the project included bridge construction or fewer streets and lots. DNR, SWCD Basin A will be crossed by streets in two locations. In both of these locations, the wetland to be filled includes an excavated drainage ditch and adjoining wetland fringe. Because the wetland to be filled by the road crossings has been subject to excavation and alteration without regard to wetland functions and values, the City and the project proposer believe that appropriately designed wetland replacement will adequately replace affected wetland functions and values. Prior to publication of the EA W, the project proposer revised the project design in response to comments by the City. The previous Concept Plan entailed 440 single family lots, 25 more lots than proposed under the Concept Plan presented in the EA W, and 33 lots more than included in the current, 407-lot proposal. The second street crossing over Basin A was added during Concept Plan revision to improve traffic circulation and emergency vehicle access within the development. All sedge meadows in Basin A with be physically avoided by project construction. After the end of the EA W comment period, some agencies expressed concern that the second road crossing might physically alter remnant sedge meadows located within Basin A, outside of the banks of the ditch. In order to address this concern, the project proposer's consultant mapped the sedge meadows in the field on May 31 using a 1"=200' scale aerial photograph as a base. Seven separate patches of sedge meadow located within Basin A were mapped on the aerial photograph. The majority of these sedge meadow patches included both reed canary grass and sedges. The sedge meadow mapping was enlarged to 1"=100' scale and overlaid on the project plans. As a result, it was verified that all sedge meadow patches are located outside grading limits and will be physically avoided. Although elimination of more lots, streets, and stormwater ponds might facilitate avoidance of Basins Band C, the project proposer has revised the project design on two occasions for the purpose of reducing environmental effects on wetlands and other resources. Based on the feedback provided by review agencies during a meeting on May 29, the project proposer believes that the elimination of 33 single family lots during two project design revisions constitutes sufficient effort to minimize and avoid wetland impacts. Only the No Build Alternative would completely avoid wetland. Wetland avoidance and impact minimization will be addressed in the Wetland Replacement Plan Application, which will be subject to review and comment by the Dakota SWCD, the DNR, and the BWSR. PAGE 7 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Prairie Creek East Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) 9. Excavation of the ditch bottom in Empire Township by more than 6 EMP, VRWMO inches will require a Grading Permit from Empire Township The City and the project proposer appreciate clarification of Empire Township requirements. Since the end of the EA W comment period, the project proposer has coordinated with the consultant of Empire Township and revised the project plans to eliminate the need for excavation of the ditch in Empire Township. Floodplain Comments No. Issue/Comments 1. Floodplain and drainage modifications should be evaluated to assess their impacts on adjacent farmlands in Empire Township. 2. Hydrologic and hydrologic information supporting revised floodplain boundaries should be cautiously reviewed 3. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) should be obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the floodplain boundary revision 4. The project may involve fill within the floodplain. Fill will not be permitted within the flood fringe. Responses 1. Floodplain and drainage modifications should be evaluated to assess their impacts on adjacent farmlands in Empire Township. Agencies/I ndividuals VRWMO DNR, MC, BRAA, SWCD, VRWMO DNR, MC, BRAA, EMP, VRWMO MC, EMP, VRWMO VRWMO Current policy for the City of Farmington is to prevent encroachment into the tOO-year floodplain. tOO-year floodplain elevations on farmland adjacent to North Creek in Empire Township will not increase after project construction. As required by City ordinance, the floodplain limits will be analyzed in more detail prior to project construction. 2. Hydrology and hydraulic information supporting revised floodplain boundaries should be cautiously reviewed DNR, MC, BRAA, SWCD, VRWMO The City of Farmington and the project proposer appreciate the caution expressed in the comment letters. After the approximate floodplain for North creek is analyzed in more detail, the resulting hydrology and hydraulic information will be reviewed by City staff and distributed to appropriate agencies and/or firms for technical review. Comments will be obtained from review agencies and/or firms before City staff prepares recommendations and presents the floodplain study to the City Planning Commission for action. Some commenting agencies and the City of Farmington consultant suggested that the floodplain should be modeled for the ditch that drains southeast through the site, as well as for North Creek. The floodplain for the ditch will be analyzed and reviewed by City staff prior to project construction. All finished floor elevations of basements of structures will be elevated at least one foot above the tOO-year flood elevations and the ground surface in backyards will be elevated at least four feet above the tOO-year flood elevation. PAGE 8 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Prairie Creek East Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) 3. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) or Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) should be obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the floodplain boundary revision DNR, MC, BRAA, EMP, VRWMO The City of Farmington will work with the project proposer to consider requesting a Letter of Map Revision or Amendment (LOMR or LOMA) from FEMA that will ensure that the federal floodplain map is updated to coincide with the revised floodplain delineation. The project proposer has duly noted the recommendation contained in the comment letters and recognizes that a LOMR or LOMA will be desirable for flood insurance purposes. 4. The project may involve fill within the flood fringe. Fill will not be permitted within the f1oodway. MC, EMP, VRWMO The comment has been duly noted for the record. As stated under Item 14 of the EA W, the project will be consistent with the floodplain regulations of FEMA, Minnesota DNR, and the City of Farmington. As required under City ordinance (Flood Plain Management, 10-10-6 (B)2 (c)), any fill placed within the flood fringe will not increase the water surface elevation of the flood by more than 0.5 feet. The ordinance allows development of flood fringe areas provided that structures are elevated at least one foot above the flood elevation. As also stated in the EA W, the flood way will not be filled or developed. Stormwater Management Comments No. Issue/Comments 1. The project proposer should clarify that the total runoff volume will increase after development. 2. The EAW does not address the two stormwater ponds shown near VRWMO the ditch in the City of Farmington Surface Water Management Plan. Agenciesll ndividuals DNR 3. The downstream water quantity effects of extension of the ditch into Empire Township have not been addressed. EMP, SWCD Responses 1. The project proposer should clarify that the total runoff volume will DNR increase after development. The City of Farmington and project proposer recognize that the total volume of runoff will increase after project construction as a result of impervious surface development, and regret that this was not stated in the EA W. However, as indicated in the EA W, the proposed stormwater ponding system will be designed to limit the peak rate of runoff and meet all requirements ofthe City of Farmington Surface Water Management Plan (September, 1997). 2. The EAW does not address the two stormwater ponds shown near VRWMO the ditch in the City of Farmington Surface Water Management Plan. PAGE 9 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Prairie Creek East Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) The project will include five stormwater ponds that will serve the functions intended for the two stormwater ponds shown in the City of Farmington Surface Water Management Plan. The ponds designed by the project proposer are expected to have stormwater management benefits that equal or exceed the benefits of ponds shown in the Surface Water Management Plan. The hydraulic design information provided by the project proposer indicates these ponds will encompass a total of 4.47 acres at Normal Water Level (NWL). The ponds are expected to reduce the peak (100- year) runoff rate from 143 cfs under existing conditions to approximately 48 cfs under developed conditions. 3. The downstream water quantity effects of extension of the ditch into Empire Township have not been addressed. EMP, SWCD Since the end of the EA W comment period, the project proposer has coordinated with the consultant of Empire Township and revised the project plans to eliminate the need for excavation ofthe ditch in Empire Township. As indicated under the response to Comment 2 above, the proposed ponding system is expected to limit the peak discharge rate from the site to the point where it will be less than that the existing peak rate of runoff. Although the total runoff amount and the base flow in the ditch that runs through the site would be expected to increase after development, the peak rate of discharge through the system is not expected to increase. Municipal Planning Comments No. 1. Issue/Comments The City should pursue extension of 19Sth and 208th Streets to the east to connect with TH 3 as identified in the City's Thoroughfare Plan. The proposed residential density should be clarified to ensure that it meets the City of Farmington low density requirements. The City could impose deed restrictions or conservation easements on wetlands in back yards. The total acreage developed from all projects must not exceed the acreage approved by Met Council in the MUSA. Agencies/I ndividuals Mn/DOT VRWMO DNR MC 1. The City should pursue extension of 195th and 208th Streets to the Mn/DOT east to connect with TH 3 as identified in the City's Thoroughfare Plan. 2. 3. 4. Responses The City of Farmington has noted MnIDOT's comment for the record. The 19Sth and 208th Street extensions are both located at least one-half mile south of the proposed Prairie Creek East development. Therefore, the City of Farmington will pursue these street extensions independent of the Prairie Creek East EA W. PAGE 10 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Prairie Creek East Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) 2. The proposed residential density should be clarified to ensure that VRWMO it meets the City of Farmington low density requirements. The City of Farmington has reviewed the density of the proposed Prairie Creek East residential development concept and determined that it is consistent with the City's requirements. 3. The City could impose deed restrictions or conservation easements on wetlands in back yards. DNR The City has noted the DNR's comments for the record and will consider any necessary action concerning the protection of wetlands in back yards during a later stage of the development approval process. 4. The total acreage developed from all projects must not exceed the MC acreage approved by Met Council in the MUSA. The City has noted the comments of the Metropolitan Council for the record and will bear those comments in mind as additional development proposals are submitted to the City. The total development acreage approved will not be exceeded without Metropolitan Council approval. FINDINGS OF FACT Project Description Proposed Proiect The Prairie Creek East residential development is a multiple-phased single-family housing project proposed for construction in northeastern Farmington, Minnesota. The project includes approximately 160 acres located in the Southeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 114 North, Range 20 West, City of Farmington, Dakota County. The proposed development includes approximately 407 single family residential lots, 18.5 acres of wetland, 4.47 acres of stormwater ponding, and 3.0 acres of municipal parks and trails. Minnesota Rules 4410.4300 Subp. 19.D state that an EA W is mandatory for construction of250 unattached or 375 attached units in a City within the seven-county metropolitan area that has adopted a comprehensive plan under Minnesota statutes. The proposed Prairie Creek East residential development exceeds this mandatory EA W threshold. Site Description and ExistinQ Conditions Most of the site is currently used for production of agricultural rowcrops and vegetable crops such as com, pumpkins, and squash. The property includes about 135.9 acres of cropland, 18.5 acres of delineated wetlands distributed among three basins, and 5.7 acres of upland grassland/brush. An excavated drainage ditch flows southeast through the site. PAGE 11 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Prairie Creek East Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Criteria Used in Deciding Whether the Project has the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects Criteria A: Tvpe. Extent. and Reversibilitv Of Environmental Effects According to Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp. 7 (A), the first factor that the City must consider is the "type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects." The City's findings are set forth below. 1. Project Site. The site includes cropland, wetland, floodplain, and an excavated drainage ditch. The project site does not include any species or natural resources known or considered to be rare or unique in this area. 2. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources. Project construction is expected to reduce woody cover and result in a decline in wildlife abundance within the site. However, the project is not expected to result in a regionally significant decline in wildlife abundance or species diversity. The project will convert approximately 135.9 acres of cropland and 5.7 acres of grassland! brush to urban landscaping, building pads, streets, parking areas, storm water ponding, and parkland. About 1.98 acres of wetland is proposed to be filled or excavated for stormwater ponding, and replaced at a 1 to 1 ratio. 3. Water Resources. The proposed project involves about 1.32 acres of wetland fill, 0.66 acres of wetland excavation for stormwater ponding, and 16.5 acres of wetland avoidance. Wetland fill and excavation for storm water ponding will be replaced at a 1 to 1 ratio by wetland creation (New Wetland Credit), and additional Public Value Credit will be provided to meet the 2 to 1 wetland replacement required under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Agencies have expressed concern regarding the ditch extension into Empire Township previously proposed, and this proposal has been eliminated from the project. 4. Water-related Land Use Management Districts. The project will be compatible with all applicable floodplain rules. The proposed development may involve some fill within the flood fringe, but the project will be consistent with the floodplain regulations ofFEMA, Minnesota DNR, and the City of Farmington. As required under City ordinance (Flood Plain Management, 10-10-6 (B)2 (c)), any fill placed within the flood fringe (i.e., the area of floodplain beyond the delineated wetland limits) will not increase the water surface elevation of the flood by more than 0.5 feet. After the approximate floodplain is analyzed in more detail, the resulting hydrology and hydraulic information will be reviewed by City staff and distributed to selected agencies and!or firms for technical review. Comments will be obtained from review agencies and/or firms before City staff prepares recommendations and presents the floodplain study to the City Planning Commission for action. 5. Erosion and Sedimentation. All site grading and erosion control activities are subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities. The project will comply with pertinent requirements and the Grading and Erosion Control Plans will incorporate multiple Best Management Practices (BMP) to protect water quality and . .. . mlmmlze erOSIOn. 6. Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff. The proposed stormwater ponding system will be designed to limit peak runoff rates and meet all requirements of the City of Farmington Surface Water Management Plan (September, 1997). The proposed ponding design is expected to help PAGE 12 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Prairie Creek East Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) mitigate potential water quality effects resulting from the increase in impervious surface coverage. Skimmers will be incorporated into the stormwater pond designs to prevent floatables from entering downstream water bodies. Only negligible post-development downstream water quality impacts are anticipated. 7. Traffic. Considering the planned improvements to Pilot Knob Road, and assuming any necessary improvements are made at the junction of 187th Street and Pilot Knob Road, the project is not expected to result in significant impacts on the regional transportation system. 8. Adverse visual impacts. No significant visual nuisances are expected. 9. Compatibility with Plans. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Farmington MUSA Expansion Comprehensive Plan Amendment (August, 1997). Criteria B: Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Proiects According to Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp. 7 (B), the second factor the City must consider is the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects." The City's findings are set forth below. Although the project proposer does not own or control development rights for any adjacent lands, the properties directly north and south of the project are guided for future development. Development on adjacent lands is expected, but will occur independent of this project. The project proposer does not have an interest in the development of adjoining properties. The City of Farmington will ensure that adjacent developments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Metropolitan Council approvals. Criteria C: Extent to Which the Environmental Effects are Subiect to MitiQation According to Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp. 7 (C), the third factor the City must consider is the "extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority." The City's findings are set forth below. Environmental effects on floodplains, wetlands, water quality, and traffic are subject to mitigation through requirements of local, state, and federal regulations, ordinances, management plans, and permitting procedures. The following permits and approvals are required for the project and these permitting and approval processes will provide additional opportunity to require mitigation or project design revisions to the extent necessary. Unit of Government Type of Application/Permit/Approval City of FarminQton Preliminary Plat City of Farmington Certificate of Wetland Replacement City of Farmington Final Plats City of Farmington Grading Permit City of Farmington Municipal Water Connection Permit City of Farmington Sanitary Sewer Connection Permit City of Farmington Building Permits Minnesota DNR Division of Waters Temporary Water Appropriation Permit Minnesota Department of Health Site Plumbing Permit PAGE 13 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Prairie Creek East Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Minnesota Department of Health Watermain Extension Minnesota Pollution Control Agency NPDES Permit Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Utility Extension Permit Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Section 401 Water Quality CertificationlWaiver U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Nationwide Permit 26 Criteria D: Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled According to Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp. 7 (D), the final factor the City must consider is the "extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, or ofEIS's previously prepared on similar projects." The City's findings are set forth below. 1. The proposed project is reasonably similar to other residential development projects located on the suburban fringe of the metropolitan area. Other projects of similar scope, accompanied by similar studies, stormwater ponding, and other mitigation, have, in general, successfully mitigated potential off-site environmental impacts. 2. The EA W, in conjunction with this document, contains or references the known studies that provide information or guidance regarding environmental effects which can be anticipated and controlled. 3. Because the proposed project falls approximately 593 single family (unattached) residential units short ofthe applicable mandatory EIS threshold (1,000 unattached residential units), no EIS that addresses a similarly sized project was available at the City of Farmington. 4. In light of the results of environmental review and permitting processes for similar projects, the City of Farmington finds that the environmental effects of the project can be adequately anticipated and controlled. Based on the original EA W, comments received from agencies, the responses to comments, and the criteria above, the City of Farmington finds that the Prairie Creek East Residential Development does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and does not require the preparation of an EIS. PAGE 14 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND RECORD OF DECISION Prairie Creek East Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) RECORD OF DECISION Based on the EA W, the response to comments, concessions made by the project proposer, and the Findings of Fact, the City of Farmington, the RGU for this environmental review, concludes the following: 1. The EA W was prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act and Minnesota Rules, Parts 4410.1000 to 4410.1700 (1997), 2. The EA W satisfactorily addressed all of the issues for which existing information could have been reasonably obtained, 3. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects, 4. The City makes a "Negative Declaration," and 5. An EIS is not required. PAGE 15 Resolution No. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRAllUECREEKEASTPUD ENVIRONMNENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EA W) FINDING NO NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) WHEREAS Minnesota Rules Part 4410.4300 Subp. 18.A. and Subp. 19.D require that an EA W be prepared for: (1) construction of 250 unattached units or 375 attached units in a City within the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area that has adopted a comprehensive plan under Minnesota Statutes, respectively, WHEREAS Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700 Subp. 9 requires that multiple phases be considered as a single project; and WHEREAS On February 9, 1998, an EA W was completed for the: (1) Prairie Creek East PUD, which ultimately planned to include about 415 single family homes; and WHEREAS On February 9, 1998, copies of the EA W were distributed to all persons and agencies on the official Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties; and WHEREAS On February 23, 1998, the EA W was publicly noticed in the EQB Monitor, commencing the 30-day public comment period; and WHEREAS A press release or legal notice was submitted for publication in the Farmington Independent newspaper to announce the completion of the EA W, its availability to interested parties, and the process for submitting comments on the EA W, and WHEREAS, The 30-day comment period ended March 25, 1998 at 4:30 p.m. and the City of Farmington accepted comments from all persons and agencies on the official Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties; and WHEREAS Additional information was requested by various persons and agencies on the official Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties; WHEREAS A request to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) for a 30-day extension period was approved to April 24, 1998 to receive the requested additional information, and; WHEREAS Three additional 30-day extensions were requested from the April 24, 1998 date to receive the additional requested information, and; WHEREAS In June, 1998, a revised EA W was completed for the Prairie Creek East PUD, which ultimately plans to include about 407 single family homes; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The EA W was prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act and Minnesota Rules, Parts 4410.1000 to 4410.1700 (1997), 2. The EA W satisfactorily addressed all of the issues for which existing information could have been reasonably obtained, 3. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects, 4. Based on the review of the record prepared in this matter, the City makes a "Negative Declaration," 5. An EIS is not required, and 6. The City of Farmington is directed to maintain a Record of Decision including the Response to Comments on the EA Wand to notify in writing all persons on the EA W distribution list, all persons that commented in writing during the 30-day comment period and to any person upon written request. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: The City Council hereby approves the Prairie Creek East PUD EA W Response to Comments, Findings of Fact and Record of Decision contingent upon the following conditions: 1. The proposer revise the Prairie Creek East PUD Schematic Plan to show the first phase of the development and illustrate the remaining acreage as R-I PUD Single-Family Residential - Planned Unit Development. 2. The proposer respond to the latest comments by the reviewing agencies concerning stormwater, floodplain and engineering issues during the platting and permitting stages of the project and understand that further issues may become apparent and must be handled through the regulatory process. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 20th day of July, 1998. Mayor Attested to the _ day of July, 1998. City Administrator A Nflnn,!!!!~~~~~=- V." ".YoHo VVUlIf.J ,tVCIU IJ July 15, 1998 (FAR 02~1007-5251) New Brighton. MN 55112 Fax 1.612.6J5.0643 1-672-635-9100 1-800-776-7769 Ms. Lee Smick City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 RE: Completion of Environmental j~eview Process , Dear Ms. Smick: I have reviewed the foUowing infomlatio'n regarding the Prairie Creek East Residential Development project: . " 1. January, 1998 EAW , 2. March 25, 1998 fax transmittal of EAW comment letters 3. April 6, 1998 Bonestrob memo to City of Farmington 4_ April 9, 1998 80nestr~ memo to Lee Mann 5. May 8, 1998 Bonestro memo to City of Farmington 6. May 9,1998 Westwo . memo to City of Farmington 7. May 28, 1998 memo frfm Westwood regarding issue resolution meeting 8. May 29,1998 Bonestroo memo to City of Farmington 9. June 2, 1998 memo f(4)m Lee Smick to Bonestroo and Northern Environmental 10. June 8, 1998 Bonestrdo letter to Progress Land Company 11. June 25, 1998 Draft lResponse to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision 12. July 13, 1998 Dakota ~ounty SWCD letter to City of Farmington Though certain technical details are not yet resolved, they are able to be handled through other regulatory processes, and hold no khown potential for the creation of significant environmental effects. Accordingly, I find that the letter and intent of the environmental review process has been fulfilled, and that the City may proceed with issuing its Findings of Fact and Record of Decision for this project Sincerely, Northern Environmental Technologi 5. Incorporated ~s . Berg trom, CPG, CHMM Director, Minnesota Operations DYBlnjf cc: Mr. Erik Peters, BRAA 01998 Northern Environmental Tac:hnologies. Inc. MHwaukee . Sr. Paul . i Greetl: Bay cl2ll2ld 17(S'ON ll9l(917 ~ ln~d lS l~lN3WNO~I~N3 N~3H1~ON 1.12I : n 86/Sl/ 1.12I JUL-15-98 WED 08:54 BOLTON & MENK, INC. FAX NO. 6128908065 P.01 E:30L- TOI'J& IVIE:i'J 1<., INC~ Consulting Engineers & Surveyors 1515 East Highway 13. Burnsvnle, MN 55337-6857 Phone (612) 89D-0509. FAX (612) 890-8065 July 15, 1998 Ms. Lee Smick Planning Coordinator 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 VIA FAX: (651) 463-1611. . Re: EA W for Prairie Creek East Residential Development Revisions as of May 29, 1998 . BMI Project No. TC97.0220 Dear Ms. Smick: On behalf of the Empire Township Board, we present to you the following comments and requests for additional infonnation and study on the revisions of May 29) 1998 all for the Prairie Creek East. Residential Development. Based upon the response to comments) no ditch excavation or lowering . will occur in Empire Township. I. Flood Plain Modifications The flood plain modifications still indicates a rise in flood plainele.vation of up to 0.5'. We . . request that this study review the impacts to .the adjacent farm land east of the site to determine the potential impactst including additional flooded areas due to the raise in the lOO-year flood elevation caused by the proposed filling within the development site. We would like ~o see existing and proposed flood plain boundaries for the area east of the site~ along the ditch extension and North Creek. . . . The revised flood plain boundaries should be reviewed and approved by FEMA. 2. Peak Runoff and Pollutant Discharge The proposer indicates a deCrease In the IOO-year storm runoff from 143 cfs (existing) to 47 .5 (developed). It appears that the intent is correct, however we. are not able to concur with the method of analysis. Lacking in the data furnished by the proposer are calculations for . the existing runoff and proposed runoff rates. 1 JUL-15-98 WED 08:54 BOLTON & HENK, INC. FAX NO, 6128908065 P,02 During the preliminary plat phase, the proposer should furnish more detailed design information so that we can confIrm the existing and proposed nmoff rates, the reduction in the peak discharge as well as tl:1e velocity discharge. What are the erosion control measures being proposed for the discharge point? Will both sidt,ls of.the unnamed creek be affected by the discharge currents? . . In addition, the proposer should provide information.ofthe .storm water quality and reduction' of pollutant loading in the stann water discharge. Also, we will need to review a plan and profile of the storm water outlet piPe. In aCcordance with the response document, the stOrm: water discharge pipe will be within the existing sanitary sewer easement. Will additional temporary easements be necessary which could disturb additional crop land? We look forward to receiving the additional requested information during.the preliminary plat phase; Please feel free to call with any questions or comments you may have. . Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK, INC. ~dJ4 Ronald A. Roetzel, P. E. Township Engineer .'~~ . -- cc: Gerald Stetzel, Township Chainnan Bill Sachs, Township Supervisor Terry Holms, Township Supervisor Floyd Henry, Township Clerk Dean Johnson, Township Planner Steve Woods, Vermillion River Watershed District Brian Watson, Dakota County Soil and Water Jim Seed 2 DAKOTA COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Dakota County Extension and Conservation Center 4100 220th Street West, Suite 102 Farmington, MN 55024 Phone: (612) 891-7777 FAX: (612) 891-7775 July 13, 1998 Mr. David Olson Community Development Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street Farmington. Minnesota 55024 Ref: 96-FRM-054F RE: PRAIRIE CREEK EAST EAW Dear David: Our office received the Response to Comments, Findings of Fact, and Record of Decision for the Prairie Creek East Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) on June 26, 1998. The following changes have been made to the proposed development: . Reduction in the number of single family lots proposed from 415 to 407. . Elimination of the proposal to extend the ditch east into Empire Township. . Elimination of the proposal to construct 9.7 acres of wetland in the area of Basin A associated with the ditch that drains southeast through the site. . Reduction of the wetland fill and excavation within the 160-acre site that is directly associated with project development from approximately 3.0 to 1.98 acres. - . Expansion of the proposed stormwater ponding area to be developed in upland from- 1.8 to 3.81 acres, and reduction of stormwater ponding to be excavated in the wetland from 1.5 acres to 0.66 acres. Total stormwater ponding area has been expanded from 3.3 to 4.7 acres. The following comments and recommendations are submitted for your review: . The EAW response indicates that wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable. A total of 1.98 acres of wetland will be altered (1.32 acres filled and 0.66 acre excavated). The EAW response also indicates that additional information will be provided during the project proposer's wetland permit applications. Three residential lots are proposed to be placed within Wetland Basin A at the east road crossing. The wetland impacts associated with these lots appear avoidable. . The revised plan also shows 0.33 acre of wetland fill associated with construction of a trail system. It does not appear that this wetland fill was calculated into total amount of wetland impact or the associated wetland replacement plan. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER . - I ..-~ Prairie Creek East EAW (96-FRM-054F) Page 2 · The EAW response suggests that only the no-build alternative would completely avoid wetland impacts. We feel this is a general statement and that wetland impacts could be completely avoided if the overall scale of this development was reduced. · Numerous lots (backyards) extend into the identified wetland basins. The potential for secondary and cumulative impacts to these wetland areas exist. This issue was not specifically address in the EAW process but will need to be addressed prior to preliminary/final plat approval and the permitting processes. · There continues to be vague information on where the floodplain is located within this development. The floodplain study, or modifications to the existing floodplain boundaries, should be completed prior to preliminary/final plat approval or during the permitting processes. In summary, the proposed development is a large-scale residential development that will create a considerable amount of impervious surfaces within an area that contains high groundwater levels. In addition, there still does not appear to be "solid" information on where the floodplain boundaries are located within the project site. During the permitting processes and the preliminary/final Dlat approval process, (he above mentioned comments should be addressed to ensure that the environmental effects of the project can be adequately anticipated and controlled. Sincerely, ~ tJds~ Brian Watson District Manager lOb TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Request Authorization - Feasibility Report for Glenview Townhomes Frontage Road DATE: July 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION Staff is requesting Council authorization to prepare a feasibility report for frontage road improvements along the east side of Trunk Highway 3 between Co. Road 72 and Willow Street. DISCUSSION The review of the Glenview Townhomes plat has identified the need for frontage road improvements in the area described above. Staff has recommended that the plat approval be contingent on the frontage road improvements being constructed in 1999. The improvements to the frontage road will benefit MnDDT and the Trunk Highway as well as the adjacent property owners. The Developer of Glenview Townhomes has agreed to participate in his proportionate share of the costs of the improvements. It has also been agreed upon between the City and the Developer that the project be designated a City project in order that the project be eligible for MnDDT's cooperative agreement program (see attached Council memo from May 18, 1998 meeting). The proposed improvements would also benefit Wausau Supply Company and a township property (Benham) south of Glenview. At the May 18th City Council meeting, the Council adopted a resolution requesting that MnDDT enter into a cooperative agreement with the City for participation in the funding of frontage road improvements. Staff has spoken with representatives from MnDDT and the earliest the project could be funded is MnDDT's fiscal year 2000, which commences on July 1, 1999. In order for MnDDT to consider the project for the fiscal year 2000, an application with preliminary plans needs to be submitted as soon as possible. Therefore staff is requesting authorization to commence work on this project at this time. I CitlJ. of Farmin9ton 325 Oak Street · FarmintJtonJ MN 55024 · (612) 463-7111 · Fax (612) 463-2591 BUDGET IMP ACT It is recommended that the project costs not funded by MnDOT be assessed to the remaining benefiting property owners. The Giles property, Wausau Supply and the Benham property would all be benefiting properties under the City's special assessment policy and would need to participate in the proportionate share of those costs that MnDOT would not fund. The assessments for the Benham property would need to be deferred until such time that property would come into the City. Since all or a portion of the project costs would be assessed to benefiting properties on this project, the positions of the various benefiting entities are outlined for Council's consideration: MnDOT . MnDDT has indicated that there is a possibility that they would be willing to participate in the project. The amount of that participation would be determined if the project is accepted in their cooperative agreement program. Tim Giles, Glenview Townhomes . Mr. Giles has indicated previously that he is willing to fund his "proportionate" share of the costs for the frontage road improvements. Mr. Giles has also indicated that he is not willing to fund all ofthe project costs. Wausau Supply Company . Wausau has given preliminary indications that they do not feel that their property will benefit from the frontage road improvements and they are not interested in participating in the costs of the frontage road improvements. It should also be noted that right-of-way will need to be acquired from Wausau Supply Company in order to construct the improvements and any costs associated with this acquisition would be assessed as a project cost. The Benham Property . Input regarding the position of the owners of the Benham property would be obtained at the neighborhood meeting for the project. Assessments against the Benham property have to be deferred until such time that the property comes into the City. City of Farmington . Review of the Glenview plat has indicated the need for the frontage road improvements. Consistent with the stated Council policy that development should pay for itself, it is recommended that City funds not be expended on this project. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the preparation of a feasibility report for the frontage road improvements. Respectfully submitted, XJ11~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Tim Giles Wausau Supply Company Lowell Benham Kevin Hoglund, MnDOT . . RESOLUTION NO. R -98 ORDERING FEASIBILITY REPORT for STATE TRUNK HIGHWAY 3 FRONT AGE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Civic Center of said City on the 20th day of July, 1998 at 7:00 PM The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution. WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve the east frontage road along Trunk Highway 3 from the intersection of Willow Street to County Road 72, and to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for study and that he is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible and as to whether it would best be made as proposed or in conjunction with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. This Resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 20th day of July 1998. Mayor Attested to the day of 1998. SEAL Clerk! Administrator ~ . , . 12a- TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Request MnDot Cooperative Agreement - Improvements at Willow and T.H. 3. DATE: May 18, 1998 INTRODUCTION At the April 6th, 1998 Council Meeting, Council approved the preliminary plat for the Glenview Townhomes project. One of the conditions of the approval of that project is that the frontage road adjacent to the Giles property be improved which would include improvements at the intersection with Willow Street in front ofWausau Lumber. DISCUSSION It is the opinion of City staff and the Developer's engineer that improvements to the frontage road at the intersection of TH 3 and Willow will benefit MnDOT and the Trunk Highway as well as the adjacent property owners. Therefore it is proposed that the frontage road project be initiated as a City project so that the City can request participation in the form of funding for the project from MnDOT. The projects that MnDOT is participating in this year have already been selected. Occasionally, however, there is extra money left over and MnDOT looks for smaller projects to fund. It is with this possibility in mind that staff is recommending that the Council request a cooperative agreement for this project at this time. For the State to consider and ultimately fund the project, a feasibility report will need to be prepared that would iQentify the project costs and method of financing. Once staff receives an indication from the State regarding their position on the City's request, staff will come back to Council for authorization to prepare a feasibility report. It is staffs opinion that the Giles property and Wausau Lumber would both be benefiting properties under the City's special assessment policy and would need to participate in the proportionate share of those costs that MnDOT would not fund. In addition, right-of-way will need to be acquired from Wausau if the project goes forward. Consistent with Council's stated position that development needs to pay for itself, it would not be recommended that City funds be expended on this project. BUDGET IMPACT . None. I CitlJ of FarminfJton 325 Oak Street · Farmington, MN 550211 · (612) 1163-7111 · Fait (612) 1163.2591 . . . .. ACTION REOUESTED Adopt the attached resolution requesting that MnDOT enter into a cooperative agreement with the City for the improvements related to the frontage road along TH 3 in the vicinity and at the intersection with Willow Street. Respectfully submitted, ~/J1~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file JOe, TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Prairie Creek Resident Petition DATE: July 20, 1998 The City has received a citizen petition from residents in the Prairie Creek subdivision. The purpose of this petition is to communicate their respective concerns associated with storm water drainage issues and other development infrastructure concerns which have not been adequately addressed by the developer to the satisfaction of affected home owners. DISCUSSION Representatives from this resident group will be in attendance at the July 20, 1998 meeting to directly communicate with Council relative to their outstanding concerns. ACTION REQUESTED City residents have requested that their petition be added to the City Council agenda for further discussion and review by Council. Respectfully submitted, rU~~-- ~b:F. Erar City Administrator Cc: Mr. Warren Israelson, Progress Land Company I CitlJ. of Farmint}.ton 325 Oak Street · Farm;ntjtonl MN 5502~ · (612) ~63-7111 · FaIr (612) ~63-2591 Petition for Resolution of Draina2e Issues Prairie Creek Third Edition West Side of Embers Avenue - Lots 15 - 24 Documentation Purpose of Petition: This petition is a request by the undersigned for a feasibility study to be conducted by the City of Farmington in an effort to resolve the drainage issues impacting lots 15 - 24 in the Third Edition of Prairie Creek. History of Draina2e Issues: The drainage issues impacting lots 15 - 24 of Prairie Creek Third Edition have been reoccurring since the spring of 1997. The earliest record of correspondence from the City of Farmington to Progress Land Company addressing this issue is dated 7/31/97 (see attached). This letter requested that the developer direct their efforts to the problem of ponding water (at the rear oflots 15, 16, 19, and 20), erosion to the west of lot 20, placement of silt fences, and the re-grading of the swale along with the application of seed or sod. Through the period of July 1997 through August 1997 problems of ponding water, and erosion continued. July 1, 1997 saw the most severe results of the inadequate drainage. The attached correspondence of 8/26/97 summarizes a meeting held between the City of Farmington and Progress Land Company. The net result of this letter was that Progress Land Company was requested by the City of Farmington to re-grade the swale as shown on the approved grading plan. A completion date of no later than September 30, 1997 was set. A letter dated 9/16/97 from the City of Farmington indicated that the re-grading of the swale would commence on September 17, 1997. Please note that prior to the re-grading of the swale, a survey was conducted to determine if the grading was to specifications; discrepancies were found in the heights of the drainage culverts at each end of the swale. The net result of the grading and sodding of the swale was that for minor to below average rains, the ponding of water was adequately dealt with. However, since the completion of the swale reconstruction, further erosion has taken place due to failure to maintain silt fences. This failure is only partially related to the developer, Progress Land Company. Over time, the vacant lots were sold. However, the issue that this petition is directed at is the ponding that is seeming to become a regular event. Earlier it was indicated that the swale was able to handle minor to below average rains. During the spring and summer of 1998 there were three times (May 15, May 30, and June 26) when severe ponding of water occurred. During these instances water approached coming into contact with houses. In some cases coming within inches. One home would have had water enter through a sliding glass door in the basement if the owner's had not sand bagged the door earlier. During every instance of what is becoming an average rain there was the pooling of water. It is quite clear to the residents of the above mentioned lots, that the swale and drainage system (although done almost to specifications) is not adequate to handle the volumes of water that have been repeatedly experienced in the past two summers. Further notable points: . According to a drawing (issue date of 5/15/95) obtained of the area, it shows that the drainage of Embry Avenue (lying directly West of Embers Avenue) would be handled with 5 storm drains. These exit directly into the one drainpipe that is also responsible for the drainage of the north end of the swale. The storm drains at the intersection of Embers Ave and Embry A venue also exits into this line. To the residents, this seems to be a contributing factor to the backup of water experienced in the swale, due to the large volume of water being handle by the drainpipe. . Further losses over and above the sod lost to erosion, has been experienced. This includes the loss of trees. . Depth of water at the north end of the swale has reached depths up to 2 and half feet. . The storm drain at the north end of the swale would appear to be in the wrong position. Direct Concerns of Residents: The driving force behind this petition is concerns of the signed residents for their homes, personal property, families, and monetary investments. Certainly, everyone is aware of the impact on the value of a home in the event flooding would occur. But perhaps stronger yet, are the concerns for one's family when ponding of water threatens one's home. A further potential impact is the loss of employment, as one home is currently operating a licensed day care. The net result of efforts to date to improve the situation, have not relieved the residents from the stress incurred over the concerns of water drainage. A point that should be made is that the City of Farmington Engineering Office (specifically - Dave Sanocki) has been most supportive in the efforts to resolve the situation. The residents of lots 15 - 24 feel that considerable patience has been demonstrated in the effort to find a resolution. It is felt at this time that a new solution is required. Closin2: It is in closing that one final thought will be expressed. The residents signing this petition feel strongly that this problem has a solution. That in the past to many people have closed their minds and hid behind the phrase, "it is working as it is designed to". If a design is flawed it should be fixed. / Petition for Resolution of Draina2e Issues Prairie Creek Third Edition West Side of Embers Avenue - Lots 15 - 24 The following is a petition for a feasibility study to be conducted by the City of Farmington in an effort to resolve the drainage issues impacting lots 15 - 24 in the Third Edition of Prairie Creek. Background information and further details are attached. Phone # Address Lot # 7"'0-2 ~'2.J 1'j7~r r; In 6-c,-s ,#v<: IS 1M ib!trffJjN1 460~ /811C(. ~ k ICo Y'OO ~.cly /PJ<7s 6?v>C~ AVE? f/ t.jb~ .637;). /88;)/ (~beYs IIU(, (7 Q y~,-\o7io7 U~'b~3 Z:VI'\lSetS A-oE dOL Yb3-7)~1 0 J ~ ~tt , (itn fSrl~ Av{ 13./ '1w -{;,sJc1 /<3&L-fOf ~M6/E(lS INF 01\ 46-S'd-113 /f$<g3S 8fr\\':3~~ A.Jg' 0 l> July 31, 1997 Mr. Warren Israelson Progress Land Company 6001 Egan Drive Suite 100 Savage MN 55378 RE: Rear Lot Drainage on Block 2 of Prairie Creek III Dear Warren, I recently received a few phone calls in regards to the drainage located near the rear lot lines of block two of Prairie Creek 3rd Addition (see attachment). Upon site review on July 23, 1997 and July 25, 1997, I noticed water ponding at the rear of lots 15, 16, 19 and 20 of block 2. I also noticed a significant amount of erosion west of lot 20 that has silted in areas of this drainage swale. It is advised that additional silt fence be placed west of this swale to prevent future erosion. Also, this swale will need to be regraded and seed or sod established to allow for adequate drainage. I would appreciate your immediate attention to this matter. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 463-1602. Sincerely, iY I? N~J ". David R. Sanocki Civil Engineer .1J cc: John Erar, City Administrator Rick Wright, Progress Land Co. Keith & Bonnie Sperbeck, 18821 Embers Ave. Steve & Beth Jones, 18765 Embers Ave. I eit~ o.t !1alf-mingto.n 325 C'an Sheet. :ia'tmim}tlUt, JL.\: 55C24 · (612) 463.7111 · !i~x (612) 463-2591 6!-1 August 26, 1997 Mr. Warren Israelson Progress Land Company 6001 Egan Drive - Suite 100 Savage, MN 55378 RE: Prairie Creek 3rd and 4th Drainage Dear Warren: Following is a summary from our meeting last week in which we discussed drainage issues in Prairie Creek 3rd and 4th: , Area 1 - Swale west of lots 13 and 14 of block 1 (prairie Creek 4th). I questioned the water ponding at the end of the flared end section at the rear of lots 13 and 14 of block 1. You stated that Rob Jarvi was going to grade this swale wQen he was on site in the past but did not do so. You later stated Progress Engineering would arrange for this swale to be regraded to allow for drainage to the west as shown on the grading plan. I request that this work be completed by September 30, 1997. Area 2- Swale to outlot A south of Eaglewood Trail {prairie Creek 4th) I questioned when the manhole and pipe work on outlot A would be completed. You stated that you would like to have this manhole and pipe work completed.while other work is occurring this year. I requestthat this work be completed by September 30. 1997. I eitlJ tJ.1 !1alf-ming.ttJ.n 325 C!ali St'teet · :iaunUtt}tlUt, AL-V- 55024 · (612) 463-7111 · fi-ax (612) 463-2591 ~ Area 3 - Swalc north of lots 31 and 32 of block 1 (Prairie Crcek 4th) I questioned the ponding water that was at the rear of lots 24. 25, 31 and 32. You stated you were not aware of this problem and would look at it. I request that this swale be regraded as shown on the approved grading plan. This work should be completed no later than September 30, 1997. Area 4 - Rear Lot Swale of Block 2 (J>rairie Creek 3rd) I questioned when the corrective grading on the swale located at the rear of lots 4 to 24 of block 2 would be completed. Yo~ stated that Rick Wright would coordinate the grading work that needs to be completed in this area. I have attached a copy of the grading plan with the current elevations that exist within the swale area. You received a letter dated July 31, 1997. in regards to this same issue. It is requested that this. work be completed no later than September 30, 1997. If you havc any questions feci free to contact Dave Sanocki at 463-1602. Sir&erel~Jt U David R. Sanocki City of farmington Engineering Division cc. File Lee Mann, City Engineer Rick Wright, Progress Engineering ... ~ ... September 16, 1997 RE: Backyard Drainage Swale (p.rairie Creek 3rd- Farmington) Dear Residents: Starting Wednesday, September 17, 1997 weather permitting Progress Land Engineering will be working on regrading the swale located within the drainage easement at the rear of your property. This project will involve removing any existing unsuitable material from the swale and replacing it with a granular material. Upon completion of all grading, the swale will be established with topsoil and sod. After all work is completed for this project it would be appreciated if you could water and maintain this drainage and utility swale. If you have any questions feel free to contact me at 463-1602. smcerel~~ f L David R. Sanocki Civil Engineer cc. File Lee Mann, City EngineeringlPublic Works Director Rick Wright, Progress Land Engineering Frank Hernandez, Progress Land Engineering CitlJ of Farmint}ton 325 OalcStreet. Farmington, MN 55024. (612) 463.7111 · Fax (612) t,63.259~",..,.. ~.........'."~'....... ..-.: .... . ~-.,. . - ..10 . . . March 27, 1998 Mr. Rick Wright Progress Land Company 6001 Egan Drive - Suite 100 Savage, MN 55378 RE: Backyard Drainage Swale (Prairie Creek 3rd - Farmington) and Road Cleaning Dear Mr. Wright: During our phone conversation today I discussed with you the rear lot swale west of Embers Avenue in Prairie Creek 3rd Addition. The silt fence, installed last fall on the west side of the swale, is failing in numerous locations. Please have this silt fence reinstalled by Monday, March 30, 1998. We also discussed installing an additional row of silt fence up on the hill to the west to help avoid future washouts. I noticed that the roads within the Prairie Creek 4th were extremely dirty today. Please have the roads within the development cleaned by Tuesday, March 31, 1998. If you have any questions feel free to contact me at 463-1602. sincereIY'!YJ R. U. David R. Sanocki Civil Engineer ce. File Warren Israelson, Progress Land Company Frank Hernandez, Progress Land Company I CitlJ. of Farmin9ton 325 Oak Street · Farmington, MN 55024 · (612) 463-7111 · Fa!.' (612) 463-2591 H 11 ; Ill- , t'. (Ie. Ft' <- 5.eJ . . - 1/IIII'DROGRESS "llANo COMPANY ING. :t 'I <: <<~~~ ,~" ,oJ'l ;':t'itll,liW{~ll~~, ~ '''~~Ilnillg & Development Dear Residents: Thanks for your patience and corporation during the recent reconstruction of the drainage swale abutting your property. We have finally completed our portion of the work but now need your assistance in order to insure that no further problems will develop. We are requesting that you water the newly placed sod abutting your property as much as possible prior to freeze up. AIso, it is necessary that any future landscape you may install not alter or impede the drainage pattern for the swale. During next year's growing season please keep grass trimmed to it's proper height to allow water to run off into the appropriate drainage struct!ues. Any slight difference in grass height from lot to lot as well as any trash or debris left in the swale will cause water to pond and accumulate in the yards up stream along the swale. We have taken great care to insure that the drainage problems experienced in the past do not continue to reoccur, YOUR help and assistance is the final key to avoiding any future problems. Again, please water the newly soded areas, keep swale free of any obstructions and notify us as soon as any problems become apparent so we can address them and keep the swale working properly. Cordially, Frank Hernandez Progress Land Company 6001 Egan D,;ve · Suite 100 · Savage, I\1N 55378 (612) 226-3200 · FAX (612) 226-3201 lOci TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Set Council Workshop Date- 1999 Proposed City Budget DATE: August 3, 1998 INTRODUCTION Council will be presented with the proposed 1999 Annual City Budget at the August 3, 1998 meeting. DISCUSSION It is recommended that Council schedule a workshop to review the budget document with staff prior to Council adoption of the proposed 1999 levy at the September 8, 1998 meeting. The regularly scheduled September 7, 1998 Council meeting will need to be moved to Tuesday, September 8th due to the Labor Day holiday. Pursuant to state requirements, the City must adopt a preliminary tax levy prior to September 15, 1998. The next regularly scheduled Council meeting will not be until Monday, September 21, 1998. A suggested workshop date for Council consideration is proposed for Wednesday, August 19, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. This should provide Council with a little more than two weeks to review the proposed document prior to the Council Workshop. Should you have questions during that time, please feel free to contact Finance Director Roland or myself at your convenience. ACTION REQUESTED Set Council workshop date to review the proposed 1999 Annual City Budget. Res ~d' .1 hn F. Erar ity Administrator I CitlJ. of FarminiJton 325 Oak Street. FarminfJton} MN 55024 · (612) 463.7111 · Fax (612) 463.2591 ". 11cz, TO: Mayor, CouncWembers, City Administrator / - ,~- Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM: SUBJECT: Development Issues - Punch Lists DATE: July 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION At the July 6, 1998 City Council meeting, several developers raised issues regarding punchlists and letters of credit. DISCUSSION Pursuant to the raising of issues by developers regarding punchlists and letters of credit, Council has requested a summary ofthe status of the various developments in Farmington. Attached is a table that outlines the status of each development. BUDGET IMPACT None. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, ~fi1~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file I CitlJ of Farmin9ton 325 Oak Street · Farmington, MN 5502~ · (612) ~63.7111 · Fa/( (612) ~63.2591 ... c o - C) c .: ns LL .... o ~ (3 J!! c CD E c. o Gi > CD c .! III > 'i: 0.. 0 W I-- ~ :l 0 co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co U W 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> ~ 0> 0> ~ 0> ~ ~ e! ~ e! ~ e! 0> ~ e! ...J en .;, .;, .;, .:, .:, ;;; .:, ii; ii; ;;; ;;; 0 0 ;;; i= <( 0 ..... ..... ..... '" '" '" ..... ..... ..... ..... !:2 !:2 !:2 '" '" '" z Z ...J rb rb rb rb rb .;, rb (j; (j; (j; (j; <0 ii; It') ii; It') (j; (j; (j; ;::: <( u: <..> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 en :l S en ~ co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co I- 0> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0> ~ 0> ~ ~ 0> ~ 0> ~ 0> ~ 0> ...J W C\i C\i C\i C\i C\i C\i ii; :l ~ I-- 0 ~ z ;;& ;;& ;;& ~ ..... E! 0 ;;& ;;& E! ;;& N ~ N ~ 0 ;;& ;;& ~ W u: w w (i; <0 (j; <0 ii; ii; (j; ...J en 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 en 0 ...J <..> I-- I-- <..> <..> ~ It') w w 0.: S e! Ii: ..., ...., :!: .... 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ a. 0.. <..> ...J 0 0 w ~ co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co ..... co - e! ~ ~ e! 0> 0> ~ ~ 0> ~ e! e! ~ 0> ~ 0> ..... e! 0 w w w w w w 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ... ... 0 0 ... <..> 0.: !:2 ~ ~ z z z 0 z z Z I-- ~ !:2 ~ ~ !:2 ~ ~ ~ ~ !:2 ~ '" g ..... 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :l :l :l :l ..... ..... <0 0 0 ::l 0 ...J W ..... ..... ..... 0 0 0 ..... 0 0 0 <( <( <( <( ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0 0 0 0 ..... 0 ..... <V ..... 0 It') It') , , 0 , , , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co ... It') '" 0 0 0 It') 0 N ... 0 0 It') 0 0 0 0 0 It') ... N .... 0> ... It') 0 It') 0 co 0> It') N 0_ ..... 0 It') It') It') ... N '" 0_ It') .... ..... N '" '" on oj '" on ..... ai ,..: ai ~ ~ N 0 0 ;;; ~ '" 0 on ~ cn W N ..... ..... '" It') 0> ;:!: ... ;:!: '" I- :l ..... <0 ..... i5 ...J W ~ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ~ (.) II.. 0 G ~ ... co co ... ... ... ... co co co ... ... ... ... ... ... co co co co ... ... ... co W ~ ~ e! e! ~ ~ e! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e! ~ ~ 0> e! e! ~ 0> e! 0> e! e! ~ I-- :l W <0 0 ... S ~ ~ .... ~ ;;; iXl '" 0 en 0 !;( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;;& ;;& ..... ~ ..... ~ ..... ~ ~ ..... ~ ..... w ~ w 0 0 ;::: ..... ..... ..... C\i iXl ;::: ..l ~ 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0 0 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 0 0 0 0 ..... 0 0 0 I-- C!l en z ::::; Z :I: <..> en ~ z :!: en en en en cn cn en cn en cn en en cn cn en cn cn en en en en en :l ~ W W W W 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 w w w 0 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w W 0.. ~ >- >- >- z z z >- z z z >- >- >- z >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- 0 co co co co ... co co co co ... co co co co co co co co co co co co co co W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0> ~ ~ 0> 0> ~ ~ ~ ~ 0> ~ ~ 0> 0> e! e! I-- W ...J (j; C\i C\i C\i C\i C\i ... It') en ~ ~ 0 ;;& ;;& 0 ~ 0 0 E! 0 ;;& ;;& ;;& 0 N ~ ~ ~ 0 ;;& ;;& ~ ..... ~ <D ~ <D <D <D <D ... <D <D ii; It') <D ~ 0 0 0 0 ..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I-- cn ::i ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... co co ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... co ~ ... ... ... ... :I: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e! e! ~ 0> e! ~ ~ ~ 0> e! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0> ~ 0> (.) W 0 0 (j; ~ iXl ~ (i; iXl z ~ ~ E! ~ N ~ ~ ~ '" ..... ..... ~ ..... - ..... ..... ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ N ~ ..... :l <D 0 0 0 jg jg iXl - - C\i 0; ... <0 :g ..... ..... ..... a. ..... 0 ..... 0 0 ..... ..... ..... ..... 0 ..... ..... 0 ..... ..... 0 ..... ..... ..... 0 z 0 i= w .... ~ ~ It') <0 ... .... It') ... <0 S; ~ ~ <0 ... It') ... ... co .... ...J 0.. ~ e! e! e! e! e! ~ ~ e! 0> ~ e! ~ ~ 0> :!: w 0 0 ..... 0 ;;; 0 ..... ..... 0 0 C\i ~ E! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" E! ~ ~ ~ E! ~ ~ 0 <0 ;::: ii; 0 ... ... 0; 0 <..> 0 ..... ..... 0 ..... ..... 0 0 ..... ..... ..... 0 ..... 0 ..... 0 0 ..... ..... ..... w '" ~ I 0 N '" .... <0 It') ~ It') ~ '" .... ~ It') <0 '" .... It') ~ ;t <0 ~ ... '" 0> ~ gj e! gj ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0> e! gj ~ ~ gj W W ~ (i; 0 > ~ ~ <0 ... ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ 1il ~ ~ ..... E! ~ ~ 1il ..... ~ ..... ~ ..... N ~ ..... I:! ..... w C!l ii; ~ (; ;::: co (j; 0> ii; (j; (j; (j; ;::: 0 <( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ I-- <..> w ~ ...., .... <0 '" <0 <0 0 0> ... <0 ... ... '" '" 0 <0 0 It') ;:!: ... 0 It') N ..... '" ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... <0 ..... ..... co ..... ..... ..... "l' ..... ..... ..... ..... ~ N ;1; .,J. .:, N ,J, .,J. rb .;, rb ,J, rb ,.:.. .,J. ,J, ;1; rb .;, ,J, ;1; , rb ,.:.. U <0 It') 0.. 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> en CD E 0 en 7ii "0 "E .r:. 5 .r:. 5 c: 7ii "0 c: c: 5 ~ c: ..... N '" ~ "0 en 7ii <0 t:. CO 0> ..... N c: c: c: "0 7ii c: "E 5 ,S! l!! ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ en g g 0 CD c: "E I-- 5 .r:. ..... N '" .... ~ "0 "E 5 ~ g g '2 Cl N '" CD .... U) .:.f. .:.f. .:.f. 0 c: c: "0 .:.f. "0 II.. N '" .... ::l ::l ::l ::l ::l c: iX: ,!11 ,!11 E ,!11 ,!11 ~ ~ ~ ~ - c: "E .r:. W I-- 0 0 0 0 0 "0 "0 '~ '~ '~ 0 :J. N '" :; CD CD (.) ~ ~ ~ <..> <..> <..> <..> <..> <V <V ~ J: J: :I: J: J: Cl CD CD <..> <..> <..> <..> ,!11 ,!11 ,!11 ,!11 "0 "0 W <V <V <V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :E :E <V <V <V c: c: c: c: c: 'i!! iX: ..., 0.. 0.. 0.. II.. II.. II.. CD CD CD CD ~ :E :E :E 0 3l ~ CD CD 5l 5l CD CD 'C: 'C: 'I: 'I: ~ c: c: c: 7ii 7ii 7ii en en en 'ii! 'i! 'ii! 'ii! ,., ,., ! CD ~ 32 32 32 <V <V <V <V <V <V <V <V E Qj Qj Qj Qj Qj 2 2 2 0 c: a. <( <( <( 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w w ::::; z z z z Z 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. I-- I-- I-- ~ a.: co en en .... o N ~ :J .., ~ III E E :J t/) I/) :J .... III .... t/) .' 1113 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City Administrator1-"u David L. Olson Community Development Director FROM: SUBJECT: Development Issues - Building Inspection Procedures DATE: July 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION Several comments were made at the July 6th Council meeting regarding building inspection procedures. The following is a brief summary of the procedures that are currently in-place. DISCUSSION The majority of the building permit processing currently taking place in the City involves the construction of new single family homes. I believe that was the nature of the concerns being expressed by builders and developers that attended the July 6th City Council meeting. Staff comments, especially in terms of time frames, are directed towards these types of building permits. Larger commercial, industrial, and institutional projects are processed under different time frames. . Plan Review As stated in Development Manual, the goal of the City is to review plans and process permit applications in 10 working days. During extremely busy times of the year, this may get extended to 15 working days. Contractors are informed of these extended review periods. A comment was made by one builder that it took seven weeks for a permit to be issued. In discussing this statement with Building Inspection staff, staff were not able to find evidence of a delay of this magnitude in the processing of any permits. It should be noted that when plan review has begun and additional information or corrections are required, it then becomes the responsibility of the contractor to provide this information and thus additional delays can result. I CitlJ. of FarminiJ.ton 325 Oak Street. FarmintJton, MN 55024 · (612) 463.7111 · Fa/( (612) 463.2591 . Requests for Inspections The City typically requests 24 hour notice to schedule an inspection. There are many cases when we are able to schedule inspections with less than 24 hour notice, particularly when the inspections needed are extremely timely such as footing inspections. Staff will "squeeze in" additional inspections which are normally scheduled on 20 minute intervals to accommodate a contractor that is doing work in the vicinity of where the inspector is already scheduled to be working. Again, during extremely busy times, inspections to be scheduled may require that 72 hours is the earliest we can have someone available to do an inspection, however I would say this is the exception as opposed to the rule. A problem staff is currently experiencing is that contractors are scheduling inspections well in advance anticipating that the work will be completed by the time of the scheduled inspection. In numerous cases, the inspectors have been going out to inspect these homes and the work has not been completed and the inspection was not canceled. This basically wastes an inspection time slot that could have been utilized for inspection for which the work was completed. Staff will be taking steps to address these types of situations. . As-Built Survey Requirements The City's current policy is to require that as-built surveys be submitted to the City at least four days prior to when a final inspection and certificate of occupancy is being requested. This is intended to allow sufficient time for the as-built survey to be reviewed prior to the final inspection being done. Staff has been experiencing problems with contractors providing insufficient time for this review, and if necessary, corrections to be made to the lot grading. A policy change was approved at the July 6th City Council meeting to allow temporary certificates of occupancy to be issued in cases where weather conditions have not allowed the final grading to be completed if the contractor provides an additional $500 surety and a $50 re-inspection fee. We will continue to look at ways in which the as-built survey requirement can be administered in a way that is workable for both the City and the contractors. This issue will be discussed at the next BATC task force meeting which is scheduled for August 6th. BUDGET IMPACT None ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, David L. Olson Community Development Director '" lie., TO: Mayor and Councilmembers City AdministratOlj7;JE.. David L. Olson Community Development Director FROM: SUBJECT: Development Issues / Keyland Homes Penalty DATE: July 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION At the July 6th Council meeting a representative of Keyland Homes discussed a situation in which he was assessed a $200 administrative penalty for completing work without a inspection on a new home in Farmington. The following is a summary of the events that occurred in that particular situation. DISCUSSION The subcontractor that was pouring the footings and constructing the foundation walls for this home contacted the City after 3 :00 p.m. on the day before he wished to pour the footings. He was informed that all inspection slots were filled for the next two days. At that point the sub-contractor chose to pour the footings rather than wait 2-3 days for the inspection. When the City became aware of the fact that the footings were poured without an inspection, a stop work notice was issued. After consultation with the City Attorney, a meeting was held with myself, Building Inspection staff, representatives of Keyland Homes and the concrete subcontractor. The options that were presented to the Builder were: . Remove the footings that had been poured without inspection. . Pay a $200 Administrative Penalty (Similar to the double permit fees charged when work is done without a building permit being obtained) and allow the City to inspect the footings after the fact. . If neither of the first two options were acceptable, a recommendation would be made to the City Attorney that a formal complaint be filed in District Court for a violation a City Ordinance. This would be processed as a misdemeanor with maximum penalty of a $700 fine and/or a 90 day jail sentence. I CitlJ. of Farmint}.ton 325 Oak Street · Farmington, MN 5502~ · (612) ~63.7111 · Fax (612) ~63.2591 .. Keyland Homes chose the second option, paid the Administrative Penalty and proceeded with the construction of the house. It is imperative that the practice of construction work proceeding without the required inspections not be allowed. In this case the decision was made to proceed without the proper inspections and the Builder did so at his own risk. City staff and the City Attorney both feel that the actions taken in this particular instance were warranted and appropriate. As stated, to ensure compliance with the Uniform Building Code which has been adopted by the City, the required inspections are needed and failure to comply with this requirement will result in appropriate enforcement actions being taken BUDGET IMPACT None ACTION REOUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, ~~L David L. Olson Community Development Director cc: Keyland Homes . '. lid FROM: Mayor & Council members City Administrato~ Robin Roland Finance Director TO: SUBJECT: Development Issues - Progress Land Company Letter of Credit DATE: July 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION At the July 6, 1998 City Council meeting, Mr. Warren Israelson voiced his distress and concern over the "pulling" of his Letter of Credit on the Prairie Creek 1st through 4th additions. DISCUSSION Mr. Israelson's issues included: 1) Staff had not communicated with him. 2) "Pulling" the Letter was a complete surprise. 3) Items were added to the punch lists that were not indicated by previous staff. 4) The amount pulled was questionable and he had no indication of the dollar value of the punch list items. Staff has been in communication with Mr. Israelson and/or his designated representative for well over 18 months. A timeline of these contacts is attached with this memo. I was involved in a meeting with Mr. Israelson and his representatives on October 16, 1997. That meeting was also attended by Lee Mann, Dave Sanocki and Craig Larson. Issues discussed included the outstanding invoices for engineering inspection on the four phases of the Prairie Creek development and the punch list items which were outstanding at that time (prior to the November 18, 1997 punchlists). Mr. Israelson agreed at that time to contact staff when the punchlist items were complete so that inspections could be done and the projects finalized. As identified on the timeline attached, subsequent conversations took place but all punch list items were not completed and the projects could not be finalized as discussed. On March 20, 1998, four letters were sent to Mr. Israelson regarding City staff intentions on the outstanding punchlist items (one for each phase of Prairie Creek). The November 18, 1997 punch lists were attached to each letter and completed items were checked off with a completion date indicated on each. Each letter gave the developer a deadline of May 31, 1998 for completion of all punchlist items. Furthermore, each letter contained the following language: "If the attached punchlist items are not completed by May 31, 1998, the City of Farmington will consider the developer to be in default of the Development Contract. As specified in the Development Contract, sections 20 and 22, the City of Farmington has the right and CitlJ. of Farmington 325 Oak Street · FarminlJtonl MN 5502f1 · (612) fl63-7111 · Fa}( (612) fl63-2591 responsibility to see that the remaining work is completed in a timely manner. Therefore, if the work is not completed by May 31, 1998, the City will retain the services of a contractor to complete the punchlist items and will draw from the current letter of credit to provide payment for the work completed. The current letter of credit is in the amount of $XXXX. (Value differed dependent on the phase.)" A final notice was sent to Mr. Israelson on May 22, 1998 indicating that punchlist items had not been completed and that the City would draw from the letter of credit after May 31, 1998 if those items were not complete. Each letter asked that the developer contact the City. engineering division if there were any questions or comments. Staff received no response to these letters. I received a telephone call from Mr. Israelson on June 18, 1998 indicating that he had heard from his banker that his letter of credit was going to be pulled. He requested a meeting to discuss why the City was taking this action and asked that the action be delayed until after that meeting. Dave Olson, Dave Sanocki and I returned a conference call to Warren and indicated that the letter was being pulled in conformance with letters sent to him on March 20th and May 22nd. I asked if the work had been completed prior to May 31st and he said it had not, but that work had been done during June. I indicated that the May 31st deadline was the one which triggered the pulling of the letter of credit. I also explained that if items were completed and inspected, the dollar amount corresponding to those punchlist items would be refunded to him. I agreed to a meeting on June 23rd to discuss how Progress Land was going to proceed with completion of the punchlist items but I indicated that the letter of credit would be pulled on Monday June 22, prior to our meeting. As to the amount of the letter of credit which was "pulled", the most recent reduction of the letter of credit took place on February 24, 1998 and each development phase was outlined on that reduction with the corresponding dollar amount attached to each. Although individual punchlist items were not shown with dollar values attached, the general categories covered by the punchlist items were identified with specific values. Mr. Israelson accepted this reduction in his letter of credit, thereby acknowledging the values assigned by the City to the outstanding work. At the time of this writing, the City has still not received notification from Mr. Israelson that punch list items have been completed. ACTION REQUIRED For City Council's information. Staff will have copies of all letters sent to Mr. Israelson over this time period available at the Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, ~#o/ Robin Roland Finance Director cc: Warren Israelson, Progress Land Company Prairie Creek Diarv Notes: Page 1 of5 Time period: July 17, 1997 to June 18, 1998 July 17, 1997 July 21, 1997 July 23, 1997 July 25, 1997 July 31, 1997 August 4, 1997 August 13, 1997 August 21, 1997 August 26, 1997 September 2, 1997 September 3, 1997 September 9, 1997 September 10, 1997 September 12, 1997 September 16, 1997 Dave Sanocki met with Jim Gunderson (resident) and neighbor to the south of Jim to discuss the ponding areas in their backyards. Dave Sanocki called Rick Wright (Progress Land) to discuss the pond drainage in Prairie Creek 4th. Dave Sanocki met with Keith Sperbeck (18821 Embers) to discuss his drainage issue that he has in prairie Creek 3rd. Dave Sanocki met with Beth and Steve Jones (18765 Embers) to discuss their drainage concern in Prairie Creek 3rd. Warren Israelson was called and informed of the resident and City's concerns that the Jones expressed. Dave Sanocki wrote a letter to Warren Israelson about the drainage problem in Prairie Creek 3rd (cc: Steve Jones, Keith Sperbeck). Dave Sanocki called Warren Israelson and informed him that the roads in Prairie Creek 3rd and 4th were extremely dirty from construction building. Dave Sanocki Called Rick Wright (Progress Land) RE: Prairie Creek 3rd swale Dave Sanocki met with Warren Israelson to discuss drainage issues in Prairie Creek 3rd and 4th. Dave Sanocki wrote a letter to Warren Israelson summarizing our meeting on 8/21/97 regarding drainage issues in Prairie Creek 3rd and 4th. Dave Sanocki set up a meeting with Rick Wright (Progress Land) and residents RE: Prairie Creek 3rd swale Dave Sanocki met with Rick Wright (Progress land), Keith Sperbeck (Resident), Kevin Molsted (resident) and Randy (Resident south of Keith Sperbeck) to discuss Prairie Creek 3rd swale issue. Dave Sanocki met with Frank Hernandez (Progress Land) to discuss the rear lot swale in Prairie Creek 3rd. Dave Sanocki met with Frank Hernandez (Progress Land), Steve Jones (Resident) and Kevin Molstad (Resident) RE: swale in Prairie Creek 3rd. Frank Hernandez (Progress Land) called and informed Dave Sanocki that they would be on site next week to start regrading the swale in Prairie Creek 3 rd. City Engineering staff hand delivered a letter to residents in Prairie Creek 3rd informing them of the swale regrading work that Progress Land would Prairie Creek Diarv Notes: Page 2 of5 Time period: July 17, 1997 to June 18, 1998 September 17, 1997 September 19, 1997 September 23, 1997 September 30, 1997 October 3, 1997 October 7, 1997 October 8, 1997 October 9, 1997 October 16, 1997 October 21, 1997 October 22, 1997 October 24, 1997 be starting tomorrow. Progress land began regrading the swale in Prairie Creek 3rd Jim Gunderson (Resident) phoned Dave Sanocki about someone filling in the pond in his back yard. Dave Sanocki stopped out on site to inform the individual that was working for Progress Land not to fill in the pond and to place silt fence at the edge of the pond. Dave Sanocki called and informed Frank Hernandez that he had stopped his worker from filling in the pond area and that Progress and the City should discuss this further prior to any more work around this pond. Inspection of swale regrading and silt fence installation in prairie Creek 3rd by Dave Sanocki. Frank Hernandez (Progress Land) was notified that that the silt fence was not installed correctly. Dave Sanocki called Frank Hernandez (Progress Land) to discuss problems in Prairie Creek 4th (Punchlist grading issues). Dave Sanocki Called Frank Hernandez (Progress Land) RE: schedule for swale regrading in Prairie Creek 3rd. Dave Sanocki called Frank Hernandez (Progress Land) for a schedule for sod work in Prairie Creek 3rd. Dave Sanocki talked to Frank Hernandez by phone today RE: schedule for sod placement in Prairie Creek 3rd and set a meeting time for 10:30 tomorrow to go over the work. Dave Sanocki Met with Frank Hernandez (Progress Land) to go over drainage issues in Prairie Creek. Frank stated that that swale work in Prairie Creek 3rd will be started Friday of this week. Lee Mann, Craig Larson, Dave Sanocki and Robin Roland met with Warren Israelson to discuss bills and punchlists in Prairie Creek 1 st - 4th Additions. Dave Sanocki returned Frank Hernandez call about meeting tomorrow discussing Arcon' s work. Dave Sanocki met with Frank Hernandez (Progress) and Arcon to discuss work off of Eaglewood Trail today and additional storm work proposed by Progress. Punchlist maps were faxed over to Frank Hernandez (Progress Land). Dave Sanocki met with builders who had concerns about the rear lot swale grade off of Easton and 187th. Frank Hernandez (Progress Land) was contacted today by Dave Sanocki to inform about builder's comments. Prairie Creek Diary Notes: Page 3 of5 Time period: July 17, 1997 to June 18, 1998 October 27, 1997 October 28, 1997 October 30, 1997 November 5, 1997 November 11, 1997 November 13, 1997 November 14, 1997 November 25, 1997 November 26, 1997 December 15, 1997 December 16, 1997 December 17, 1997 January 9, 1998 January 28, 1998 February 24, 1998 Dave Sanocki returned call to Frank Hernandez RE: Arcon's future work. Dave Sanocki inspected storm sewer that was installed by Arcon today in Prairie Creek 4th. Dave Sanocki met with Frank Hernandez (Progress land) and Randy with Arcon to go over punchlist items for Prairie Creek 1 st - 4th Additions. Frank Hernandez (Progress Land) stopped in to talk with Jerry Auge and Dave Sanocki to discuss the grading on lot 6 block 2 of Prairie Creek 4th Addition. Engineering suggested this lot be graded according to the approved grading plan but an additional ponding area may need to be created to the east. Dave Sanocki returned a call to Frank later that day related to the above issue. Dave Sanocki called Rick Wright to set up a meeting for 11/14/97 to go over punchlist items. Jerry Auge and Dave Sanocki inspected erosion control punchlist items in Prairie Creek 4th. Jerry Auge and Dave Sanocki met with Rick Wright (Progress Land) and Warren Israelson (Progress land) to go over punchlist items. Inspection of punchlist items in Prairie Creek 4th by City staff Inspection of Punchlist items in Prairie Creek 4th by City staff Dave Sanocki reviewed puncWist items for Prairie Creek 1 st - 4th Additions and then faxed them over to Frank Hernandez (Progress Land). Frank was contacted by phone prior to faxing. Site inspection of swale grading by Dave Sanocki within Prairie Creek 4th. Jerry Auge and Dave Sanocki met with Frank Hernandez (Progress Land) to go over punchlist items, including what needs to be corrected in the ponds within Prairie Creek 4th Addition. Dave Sanocki sent a letter to Warren Israelson and residents about disturbed areas around ponds in prairie Creek 4th. Note: the punchlist for the 4th addition covers these disturbed areas around the ponds. Robin Roland and Dave Sanocki met with Rick Wright (Progress Land) to discuss project billing and development tree planting. Lee Mann completed the letter of credit reduction for Prairie Creek 1 st - 4th Additions. The letter was addressed to Warren Israelson advising him of the reduced letter of credit and to contact Dave Sanocki with a proposed ~ . . . Prairie Creek Diary Notes: Page 4 of5 Time period: July 17, 1997 to June 18, 1998 March 20, 1998 March 25, 1998 March 27, 1998 April 16, 1998 May 14, 1998 May 18, 1998 May 19, 1998 May 22, 1998 May 28, 1998 June 11, 1998 June 16, 1998 schedule as to when the attached punchlist items would be completed. Dave Sanocki sent a letter to Warren Israelson for the completion of punchlist items and project closeout. Jerry Auge talked to Frank Hernandez about the drainage problems on Lots 1-3 of block 2 of Prairie Creek 4th and also issues with the Prairie Creek 3rd drainage swale (seeding oflots that were disturbed from construction). Frank was faxed a diagram for the area holding water on lots 1 - 3 of Block 2 of Prairie Creek 4th. Dave Sanocki sent Rick Wright (Progress land) a letter regarding the swale erosion and silt fence reinstallation in Prairie Creek 3rd. Dave Sanocki met with Dave from Arcon on site to go over punchlist items for the 4th Addition. Arcon, who was the prime contractor for the 4th Addition, only wanted to go over items they were responsible for. Dave Sanocki, Jerry Auge and Lee Mann met on site with Frank Hernandez (Progress Land) to discuss drainage off of Embry Avenue and swales in Prairie Creek 4th Addition. Dave Sanocki phoned Frank Hernandez to discuss grading the gas main easement in Prairie Creek 4th. Dave Sanocki faxed over the revised punchlist for the 4th addition with diagrams showing structure numbering and location. Dave Sanocki sent a final notice to Warren Israelson with attached letter dated March 20, 1998. Dave Sanocki and Jerry Auge met with Rob Jarvi (Builder), Ronny Folkes (Mid America Pipeline) and Frank Hernandez (Progress Land) to discuss grading on the gas easement north of 187th. Dave Sanocki questioned Frank on the punchlist status and asked if all remaining items would be completed by the end of May. Frank stated he would check on the status and get back to him. Matt Stordahl met with Frank Hernandez (Progress Land) and a representative from Arcon Construction to go over punchlist items for Prairie Creek 1 st - 4th Additions. Dave Sanocki met on the 4th Addition site with Ronny Folkes (Mid America Pipelines), Rob Jarvi (Builder) and Frank Hernandez (Progress Land) to go over grading on the gas main easement (north of 187th Street). Dave Sanocki questioned Frank on the status of remaining punchlist items in Prairie Creek 1 st - 4th Additions. .. . . . Prairie Creek Diarv Notes: Page 5 of5 Time period: July 17, 1997 to June 18, 1998 June 18, 1998 Robin Roland phoned Warren Israelson (Progress Land Company) to discuss the City's intent to draw from his current letter of credit. Dave Sanocki and Dave Olson were in her office when this phone conversation took place. , .. II e TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator tjJt_ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Downtown Streetscape Project- Neighborhood Meeting Feedback DATE: July 6, 1998 INTRODUCTION Two neighborhood meetings were held regarding the downtown streetscape project, the Council Workshop on June 10, 1998 and the Chamber of Commerce meeting on June 24, 1998. The purpose of the meetings was to collect feedback from the downtown business owners regarding the project and narrow the options for the sidewalk. DISCUSSION The majority of the attendees indicated that something needs to be done with the downtown streetscape. The majority also indicated that they would like to see more than just plain concrete used for the sidewalk. Cost is an issue and concern was expressed regarding the assessment methodology. The option of neck-outs at intersections received mixed reactions. The cost of the neck-out design and maintenance issues were discussed. The options presented are outlined below with preliminary estimated costs. Base Option $721,000 Option A - Concrete with Pattern $748,000 $27,000 Option 8 - Concrete with Colored Concrete $776,000 $55,000 Option C - Colored Concrete $830,000 $109,000 Option D - Colored Concrete with Pavers $816,000 $95,000 Option E - Concrete with Pavers $762,000 $41,000 Option F - Pavers $803,000 $82,000 replacing the trees, and adding some landscaping and site amenities such as benches and drinking fountains. The options presented deal with the sidewalk treatment only. The trees, lights and amenities remain the same for all options. The options for the sidewalk presented include: concrete with a pattern, concrete with colored concrete, colored concrete, colored concrete with pavers, concrete with pavers, and pavers. Staff would like input from the Council as to whether or not to eliminate any of the options outlined above for inclusion in the feasibility report. BUDGET IMP ACT The preliminary estimates are as outlined above and the financing is discussed in the attached memo to Council from June 10th 1998. A detailed analysis will be presented with the feasibility report when it is brought to Council. ACTION REQUESTED Direct staff regarding which options to include in the Downtown Streetscaping project feasibility report. Respectfully submitted, ;;t>>z~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ Lee M. Mann, P .E., Director of Public W orkslCity Engineer FROM: Robin Roland Finance Director SUBJECT: Downtown Street Lighting and Sidewalk Project - Workshop DATE: June 10, 1998 INTRODUCTION A workshop to discuss design options for the Downtown Sidewalk and Street Lighting project has been scheduled in order to provide direction to staff in preparation of a feasibility report for the above referenced project. DISCUSSION The Downtown Sidewalk and Street Lighting Project has been identified in the City's five-year CIP and includes sidewalk and street lighting improvements along Oak Street, 3rd Street and Spruce Street. The project has been split into two projects in the CIP, Oak Street scheduled to be done in 1998 and Spruce and 3rd to be done in 1999. For the purposes of the workshop, the projects are being addressed as one project. As stated previously, the project identified in the CIP includes the removal and replacement of the sidewalk and street lights in the project area. In addition, cost estimates for tree removal and replacement, additional landscaping and other site amenities are included for Council's consideration. The vast number of options that exist for the materials and design of a downtown streetscape is what has prompted staff to request this workshop. When the CIP was put together, it was assumed that the existing sidewalk would be removed and replaced with regular, non-decorative concrete sidewalk. As staffheld discussions regarding the project at the point of initiating a feasibility report, it became evident that it was necessary to receive direction from the Council and input from downtown business owners regarding the options that are to be studied further. The cost estimate for the Base Option includes replacing the sidewalk with regular concrete sidewalk, installing new street lights and refinishing the existing cobra lights, removing and replacing the trees, and adding some landscaping and site amenities such as benches and drinking fountains. The options presented deal with the sidewalk treatment only. The trees, lights and amenities remain the same for all options. The options for the sidewalk presented include: concrete I CitlJ of FarminlJton 325 Oak Street · Farmint}ton, MN 55024 · (612) 463-7111 · Fax (612) 463-2591 , . with a pattern, concrete with colored concrete, colored concrete, colored concrete with pavers, concrete with pavers, and pavers. Ms. Chris Behringer with Bonestroo and Associates will be present with examples of various options for review. BUDGET IMPACT The preliminary estimated costs for the options presented are as follows: Option A - Concrete with Pattern $748,000 $27,000 Option B - Concrete with Colored Concrete $776,000 $55,000 Option C - Colored Concrete $830,000 $109,000 Option 0 - Colored Concrete with Pavers $816,000 $95,000 Option E - Base Concrete with Pavers $762,000 $41,000 Option F - Concrete Pavers $803,000 $82,000 According to the City's Special Assessment Policy, 35% of the costs of the reconstruction of these improvements would be assessed to benefitting property owners. Based on the Base Option (the lowest cost option) and Option C (the highest cost option), the range of estimated special assessments and required City contributions are reflected below. Base Option Option C $253,000 $291,000 $468,000 $539,000 Potential Financing Sources The remaining costs financed by the City would equate to approximately $45,000 per year for 15 years. Sources for this annual contribution may be the Road and Bridge fund, the HRA Special Revenue fund and/or any proceeds from available tax. increment financing. Anyone or a combination of these sources may be utilized to fund the portion of the project cost not covered by special assessments. . '. . ACTION REOUESTED Council's review and discussion of the information presented will result in direction for proceeding with the project. Respectfully submitted, XM~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Robin Roland Finance Director cc: file /Z,a TO: Mayor & Councilmembers City Administrator1~ FROM: Robin Roland Finance Director SUBJECT: Water Shut-off Policy DATE: July 6,1998 INTRODUCTION At its meeting on June 22, the Water Board requested that the City Council give its concurrence on their decision to change the policy of water shutoffs. DISCUSSION Under current policy, any property 90 days in arrears of payment of their Municipal Services bill is notified by mail of their delinquency and the City's intent to shut-off water service for non payment of the bill unless payment is made (or payment arrangements are made). If no payment or response is received, a City employee posts notice at the property of the impending shut-off in 24 hours and the water is shut-off the following day if no action is taken by the property owner. Water service is restored to the property upon payment in full of the delinquent bill and payment of a $53 reconnection fee. Currently, an average of 300 shutoff notices are sent out each quarter. Of these notices, 125 properties are actually posted and 5 properties are shut-off for non payment. Preparation of the shut-off list, mailing of the notices, posting of the notices and handling of all related items now requires almost two full weeks of staff time per quarter including almost two full days of street and utility division staff time. The Water Board has considered that the cost of the current water shut-off policy will only continue to grow and has advised staff of their desire to discontinue the current policy. The alternative is to change to certification of delinquent utilities to property taxes. BUDGET IMPACT Certification of delinquent utilities to the property taxes guarantees the collection of the bill, with interest and an administrative fee, as part of the property's subsequent year taxes. This is a one year assessment which requires mailed notice and public hearing in November of each year. Council currently certifies those delinquent accounts which cannot have the water shut off, due to a variety of operational reasons. CitlJ of Farmint)ton 325 Oak Street. Farminfjtonl MN 55024 · (612) 463-7111 · Fax (612) 463-2591 . ACTION REQUIRED City Council concurrence with the Water Board decision to change the water shut off policy effective August 1, 1998. ;?z4U Robin Roland Finance Director /~b TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Ash Street ReconstructionlPrairie Waterway III - Committee Appointments DATE: July 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION At the July 7, 1998 Joint Special Council Meeting, it was discussed that the City, Castle Rock Township, Dakota County, Dakota County Fair Board and Dakota County Extension Service would each appoint two representatives from their respective bodies to serve on a multi- jurisdictional Project Committee. This committee was formed to reach agreement on guiding project principles and to discuss key project management issues. The nature of these public improvements would include street reconstruction, sanitary sewer trunk and lateral lines, water main, storm sewer and the construction of an interconnecting storm sewer holding pond. DISCUSSION As discussed at this joint meeting, the City Couneil agreed to select two of its members to serve on this multi-jurisdiction project committee. In terms of staff support, the Senior Project Management Team consisting of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer, Director of Community Development, Finance Director and myself would provide staff support to committee members as needed and appropriate, and attend, as necessary, committee meetings. It is also suggested that the City Attorney be involved in preliminary committee discussions to advise the Committee on potential legal issues that should be acknowledged and reviewed prior to any final committee recommendation. ACTION REQUESTED Appointment of two Council members to serve on the multi-jurisdictional public improvement committee. Respectfully submitted, F. Erar City Administrator Citl}. of Farminl}.ton 325 Oak Street · FarminfJton, MN 55024 · (612) 463.7111 · Fax (612) 463.2591 /c:I c TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Ash Street Reconstruction/Prairie Waterway III - Draft Principles DATE: July 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION At the July 7, 1998 Special Joint Council meeting, it was determined that a set of guiding principles should be developed to articulate some basic concepts between the participating jurisdictions. It was agreed that each jurisdiction would develop a set of respective principles that would be the basis for discussion at the upcoming Joint Project Committee meeting scheduled for July 22, 1998. It was further understood that these principles, upon agreement--in part or in whole, would then be brought back to each jurisdiction for board approval. DISCUSSION Relative to issues which have emerged in the past, and in keeping with Council policies and City ordinances that have served to establish a formal City negotiating position relative to these two public improvement projects, the following draft principles are presented for Council consideration. 1) In accordance with the City Code, Sections 8-2-11 and 8-3-14, City ordinances require that all properties served by municipal services, to include sewer and water, shall be included within the corporate boundaries of the City. These two separate ordinances were adopted in 1965, and effectively prohibit utility connections with properties not in the City. 2) It has been the City's position that all private properties with failing septic systems or septic systems not in compliance with current ISTS standards shall be connected to the City's sanitary sewer system and, where available, shall be connected to City water services. 3) It has been the City's position that all properties connecting to City municipal services shall be assessed an appropriate connection fee for such services. 4) It has been the City's position that project costs associated with the construction of storm sewer and holding pond shall be allocated in proportion to the property acreage served by the project. I Citlj. of Farmint}.ton 325 Oak Street. Farmini}tonl MN 55024 · (612) 463.7111 · Fa/( (612) 463.2591 Mayor and Council Members Draft City Principles Page 2 of3 5) Council consideration of a position that would allow the Township to retain ownership of the property supporting the construction of the holding pond (PWW III) under the following conditions: a) that the City be designated as the project manager in the construction of the holding pond under the oversight of a multi -jurisdictional board for the duration of the project's construction; b) that as this property will legally remain within the township's jurisdiction that any maintenance costs be assumed by the township; . c) that the township shall issue the necessary bonded debt to cover the cost of constructing the pond and shall assume primary responsibility for collecting project assessments from all contributing jurisdictions in whatever legal means available; d) that the township shall adopt a storm water management plan and collect the necessary fees associated with the drainage of storm water into the pond through a separate multi-jurisdictional joint powers agreement. 6) Council consideration of a position that would allow property owners in HigWand Circle to become part of the municipality under the following conditions: a) The township shall agree to waive provisions established under state law regarding loss of tax base payments by the City, and agrees to contribute said amount on behalf of annexed township residents to the Township's portion of project costs. These amounts would be subtracted from special assessments on a one-for-one basis against individually annexed township properties. b) The City shall agree to waive the requirements associated with the upgrading of streets, curb and gutter prior to annexation, in exchange for a special assessment agreement providing for 35 percent to be assessed against HigWand Circle residents, 32.5 percent payment from Castle Rock, with the remaining 32.5 percent underwritten by the City. c) That all HigWand Circle property owners agree to waive their rights to appeal special assessments related to the reconstruction of the road, curb and gutter at 35% of the street improvement reconstruction costs consistent with the existing Council approved Special Assessment Policy. d) That all Highland Circle property owners agree to special assessments for storm sewer improvements as needed and required by City ordinances, engineering studies, and in accordance with approved City fee schedules. e) That all Highland Circle property owners agree to conneet to City sewer and water services and pay connection charges as appropriate and required by City ordinances and in accordance with approved City fee schedules. 7) Any undeveloped township properties having access to City sewer and water service and desiring to be developed shall be required to connect to municipal utilities and shall be subject to City ordinances requiring annexation into the municipality upon municipal service connection. Mayor and Council Members Draft City Principles Page 3 of3 ACTION REQUESTED Council consideration and adoption of the aforementioned draft City principles. These draft principles have been reviewed by the City Attorney. If Council has any additional concerns or thoughts on these draft principles, please contact my office at your convenience. ReSpectful~tted, ~~{d 000 F. Erar City Administrator file 10</ TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrato~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Sanitary Sewer System - Alternate Power Plan DATE: July 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION Council has directed staff to research and recommend options for providing alternate power for lift stations in emergency situations. DISCUSSION Staff has researched various options for providing alternate power to Farmington's lift stations. Following is the information obtained to date: . The Fairhills lift station would need a generator that would cost approximately $50,000. It would take approximately 3 to 4 months to obtain this type of generator. . The rest of the lift stations in the City could be run off of a generator that is estimated to cost approximately $20,000. . Rental of a generator that would run the Fairhills lift station IS estimated to cost approximately $1800 per month. Based on this information and the fact that the City is currently pursuing installing improvements that would eliminate the Fairhills lift station, it is not recommended to purchase a generator that would meet the operating needs of the Fairhills lift station. It is recommended that the City rent a generator for the Fairhills lift station through October which would cover the remainder of the season when there is a high risk of power outages. Assuming that the lift station is eliminated this fall, the $50,000 generator would not be needed for the smaller lift stations and it would not be big enough to power a water supply well. Even if the lift station were not to be eliminated, it would be more cost effective to purchase a generator large enough to power both the water supply wells and the Fairhills lift station. Delivery of a generator of that size could not happen until April 1 st, 1999 and could cost approximately $80,000. I CitlJ of FarminfJ.ton 325 Oak Street · Farmington, MN 5502~ · (612) ~63.7111 · Fax (612) ~63.2591 Staff is continuing to research alternate power options for the remaining smaller lift stations in the City and further recommendations will be forwarded to Council as information becomes available. BUDGET IMPACT Rental of a generator to power the Fairhills lift station through October is estimated to cost approximately $6,300 and would be funded with sewer operating revenues. ACTION REQUESTED Authorize staff to rent a generator to provide back-up power for the Fairhills lift station. Respectfully submitted, ;zt. Yh ~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file f3~ TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator ~ FROM: Joel Jamnik, City Attorney SUBJECT: St. Paul Train Whistles - Discussion DATE: July 6, 1998 INTRODUCTION Recently, there has been increased interest in exploring the possibility of adopting a local ordinance regulating the sounding of train whistles within the City. City officials from several cities met to discuss this issue at the recent League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference. Also, the City of St. Paul has recently adopted an ordinance providing that: No person shall sound or blow any whistle of any locomotive within the city limits, except as a warning of imminent and immediate danger to life or property. The sounding of any locomotive whistle shall be prima facie evidence that it was sounded by the engineer operating the locomotive. DISCUSSION There are two primary legal issues involved in regulating the sounding of train whistles. The fIrst issue is whether the general police powers of cities to adopt ordinances that protect the health, safety and welfare of citizens has been pre-empted by federal or state regulation. The second issue is the question of possible liability arising out of the adoption of local ordinances. Preemption In 1994, Congress enacted and amended the High-Speed Rail Development Act, 49 U.S.C. ~ 20101, et seq. The High-Speed Rail Development Act, as amended in November 1994, directs the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate regulations requiring the sounding of a locomotive horn at every crossing. The High-Speed Rail Development Act contains provisions for exceptions to the requirement for audible warnings as well as for waivers and exemptions. The Secretary of Transportation is required to take into account local issues concerning grade crossings and current restrictions and safety records of each crossing in implementing regulations requiring audible warnings. The Secretary has not, however, promulgated such regulations. Apparently, a draft of the rules is in internal circulation in preparation for issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking. During this process, the Transportation Department learned that they were required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (no small task for 200 + cities nationwide). The EIS and rulemaking process may delay fInal federal action for another year or more. I CitlJ of Farmint}ton 325 Oak Street. FarmintjtonJ MN 55024 · (612) 463-7111 · Fa/( (612) 463-2591 Essentially the proposed rules provide that a City may not prohibit the sounding of train whistles at crossings, except a City may request that the use of train whistles be suspended if certain supplementary safety measures exist that compensate for the train whistle. Guard crossing arms are an example of what may be deemed satisfactory safety measures. Given the uncertain situation involving the adoption of the federal regulations, some local governments have decided to move forward and adopt local regulations. The railroads have argued that the High-Speed Rail Development Act preempts cities from prohibiting the use of tram whistles. At least two federal courts have disagreed, concluding that until the Secretary of Transportation promulgates regulations requiring the sounding of a locomotive horn at every crossing, there is no federal law that preempts a municipality's right to prohibit or regulate a railroad's use of audible warnings at a grade crossing. These court cases indicate that the amended High-Speed Railway Act of 1994 was the likely catalyst for the railroads' decision to resume sounding audible warnings despite ordinances. In addition to the foregoing argument, the railroads asserted that the cities were preempted by federal regulations requiring that lead locomotives have an audible warning device of specified capabilities. However, the courts disagreed holding that the regulation of the use of equipment is distinct from limiting the possession of the equipment or regulating the equipment itself. While these cases tend to support a municipality's regulation of railroad audible warning devices, it is only a matter of time before the Secretary of Transportation complies with the High Speed Rail Development Act and promulgates rules regulating the sounding of whistles or horns at grade crossings. Cities will have to regulate within the parameters established by the final rules. However, until the Secretary of Transportation promulgates such rules, it would appear that the City has the authority to adopt reasonable regulations regarding the sounding of train whistles. One note of caution: the case law on this subject has not involved the Minnesota courts, and consequently these decisions have no binding effect on Minnesota based litigation. Minnesota courts can, and in some notable recent cases have, departed substantially from the precedent established in other state and federal court systems. State laws may also form the basis for preemption claims. However, the state law requiring sounding train whistles or bells specifically exempts cities: Minn. Stat. ~ 219.567. Failure to ring bell. An engineer driving a locomotive on a railway who fails (1) to ring the bell or sound the whistle on the locomotive, or have it rung or sounded, at least 80 rods from a place where the railway crosses a traveled road or street on the same level, except in cities, or (2) to continue ringing the bell or sounding the whistle at intervals until the locomotive and attached train have completely crossed the road or street, is guilty of a misdemeanor . (emphasis added) In St. Paul, the train operator has indicated its intent to comply with the ordinance. Liability As mentioned at the beginning of this memorandum, the City of St. Paul has recently adopted a whistle regulating the sounding of train whistles. The City of St. Paul attorney's office reportedly stated that the City would not be found negligent in adopting an ordinance. In contrast, the City of Newport chose not to adopt an ordinance that completely bans the sounding of train whistles from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. The Newport city council expressed concerns regarding the City's liability in the event an accident occurs when a railroad engineer fails to blow the whistle in reliance on a City ordinance. The different opinions may be based at least somewhat on the differences in the ordinances. Newport was considering a complete ban while St. Paul's ordinance imposes a restriction only on routine or unnecessary soundings. Additionally, while the St. Paul opinion is focused on eventual liability or negligence, the Newport concern seemed broader in considering the costs of defending claims whether or not they are eventually successful. If a person is injured by a train within the City, and that person seeks to establish the fault of others for the injury, the existence of a city ordinance restricting the sounding of whistles will almost certainly form the basis of a claim against the City. If the injured person chooses not to sue the City, the railroad likely would, seeking another party to share in any damage award or settlement. The City (or more properly, its insurance provider) will have to defend that action, which could be quite costly. The defense of a claim, however, is not to be confused with the eventual outcome. In Minnesota cities enjoy substantial protections from negligence claims based on the passage of ordinances or other legislative acts. A municipal ordinance prohibiting the unnecessary ringing of bells and blowing of whistles on locomotives within corporate limits of city has been determined by the Minnesota Surpreme Court to be reasonable and valid. Larson v. Lowden, 204 Minn. 80, 282 N.W. 669 (1938). State law provides immunity from any claim based upon an act or omission of an officer or employee, exercising due care, in the execution of a valid or invalid statute, charter, ordinance, resolution, or rule. Minn. Stat. ~ 466.03, Subd. 5. Courts have also enunciated certain common law rules surrounding the elements of a negligence action, such as the "public duty doctrine", which provide additional protection from liability. Based on the law, the city ultimately should be found immune from liability. As stated, however, there may be substantial costs incurred in establishing this immunity. While most of the costs would likely be borne by the City's insurance carrier, some costs would undoubtedly spill over, as would the prospect of higher annual premiums based on claims experience. I hope this memorandum is helpful as the Council deliberates the merits of adopting a local ordinance regulating the sounding of train whistles. Respectfully submitted, Jwg.~~v Jo~IJ. J~ /{t City Attorney . . on = ~ ~ c:>.. U-l ~ ...- = ~ f-< ~ Ul .. Cl.) S r{2 o ~ ~ co a> ~ . ~ U-l z 2- ~ o ~ u.. - ~ ca Q. - ti) C -- -a I ... Q. Q. ca en CD - ..... en -- .c ~ c -- ca ... ..... C ca .Q o ..... CD ... ~ en ca CD E ~ c iJ ... CD E UJ ~ ~ ~ ~ U 1i ~ 8 .~ ~ 'E .E g ~ 3 0 ~ ......... Q.) :u.~ ~ ~ 0 ~... .5 ~ e d) 8 .~ ~ ~ 8.] ~ ~ ~ ~ "0 ~ V) V) 'C; :n e ] 9 -5 ~ o..E ~ tnOCU cuv'l~ -bD G)-5;.~:E ~u~< "'0:":: ur-V)..._ _~:r;_ .~-o g,-.~ c'G ~ ~ ~'E -g; u ~ ~ ro 3 .~ :a == ::s II) V1 G'~ E 0 ~ 0 g U aJ~ ~o~~u ::r:-::s~ .0 ~ ~ ~.88-5 lii o~ V1bO ....C:s:: .~ ]S::UQ) E .5 ~ ~ ': "r.: - ~ 8.s ~ ~ ~ .~.~ fro ~ ~ ~ = .;; ro... ...o....-v; 1-0 c.. eo.. 0 O'u]Q.)Q).......cuO .Q.)ro~;:: 2: ~ ~ t:: oS ii e o.,c 0 ] ~ .::: ~~t;~ ~~~~~u~:E~ _ :: .5 '" .c "" _ ::r: -c:l::;:j ~ 9 ~ ~~'6g.-g 9 ~~ -:;:0 ro.g;i~f~ ~V)~ g' ~ ~:> 0 == V> g'1l 1-0 0 S ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ 'Vi :s ......u o"ot'dE...... ~U'lo. ~ := ~ 'ti Q) l6..o 0 0 .';::: e 8 ~~cuc::j:Q80::;c :u~o. "'5] ~ ~ ;;. ~ ~ ~ ~ '€ ~ ~ .... ro c: C':S c:: ~ ~.::J _ _,..r... c',-.6 8 ~ 0 O,.l .~ 0 ..c > . uO"EQJl-+UcuU~ ::~..E QJ EO'" "g fJ)..c .......~. "0 c:: be ES ~ (j':a E- ~ ~ E ,5 ~ ] ~ d 8 ~ a 8 15 'e:~ ] ~ ~ ~ ~ fJ) ~ 8 -~ "0 := ~.... $ 11 ~ BgeQ)~.~~....~~~.~gb e~-Scu~:"::EV15~:C; 0-2 ro 0 S 4j'.\J) . Q) be C\1 :; 0 ro~(.f)s::~"3EEioiiic-s g ~ ~ .s o:i 6': ~ ~' ~ ~ .~ II) 1:':];3 ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ro ..... ..c ~ ~ ~. : ~ .;:: ~ e ] G' . =a c:: -0 u"tj ~ ~. ~ .~'u]o:: ~.~ ~~ ~.~ .... ;...- Q) Vi ~ 0 Q) Q) -- "'0 ~ b.O...c::.- u ...c:: ~ C1.l co (1) ~ ~ ..c:: -0 v ~ : ~ B .- -0 t::. c: ~.a v ~.- U <il '" -c:l "" 0 ~ .2P ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;> ~ Q)'2'; 2- ~~ g > ~ CU.S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cduVl8.....~"E(1)I-o(lj"'08...c E ~ c: ,~ - "" 0 ~ ;:j 0. <:: ~ E ~C1.lgb",o~~~..c::o"o.sa~Q) o 1;l .,.:c: 0 lO '" ., ~ '" 'id ~;:;: us.c~Vl.2~~o=]E:a 5s-g.c 2; 0-5 ~ C:.u~.o c: o :: 8 ~ .;:: -; -5 c: ~ C:":, "" 15 ';: -5:; -5.i:j "'.> g :: 15 c'.g u ~:a 1-0 5 t; ~ ~. Vl -d U [1 ~ ~ '" :: 1:J E ~ 1;l 0..'( a 1:J e? E g ;:;: .,; E-< _ 0 E' .c E-< ., :>, U :; ] g ~ 8 .5 ~ ~ ] ... ~ .;:: GI$ j~ ...~ ..", g~ Q:::l c:S 't~ >c... ,.,s Ill'" ~ ~ ~' G' ~ ~ =; UO , :!:.c ,-c:l c: .,.,; -0 .... Vl VI Q) 1-0 1-0 1-00 VlV]"O~DDQ)<.o-lp..,OO .S ~ g..c:: :u ~ ~ u 0 -e ~~-E~~Vl~o~2 ""I-oo~ Q)I-o "'C..... .E~~~ a~-g E o~o .::.o.!:= .~VU -o..c:: ~ 0 ~ c:: l::~5~~..c::..c::]~ .0:; - 0 0 c: E.::: ~ :il ~...c:: ~ u c.'Cd 8 (Ij ~o~ ~ .... 0.. C. 0. b ~ Q) .5 ~ "E ~ .....:.- cd ~ .... -5 C: cd ;:S ~ (/) U ;;... co.5. Q):a ~ ~ ~ "3 =8 .0 ~ 15' ~ .~o (/)'V; ::s ro._ 0 0."'C t:::r: bD.5 8 ~ g.: ~ ~'e ~ .5 cd -S (/) b.C u U ::a .... .... ~ ~ ~ (1).5 ~ ~.--- E .5 _ ",.o.c c: c: ._ ~ ., - Ul cJ E E-< ~.- :> c: - c: 8 2 E ~ B ~ ~'-a ~~ I g \.\, ! ~Z i ;.~.~: -~r ti . ~" ,'" iAV\~ III ~J ,- "---~If~~ I ~~ TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator ~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Hickory Street Storm Water Update DATE: July 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION Staff has applied for a permit from MnDOT to discharge storm water from Hickory Street into the median along Trunk Highway 3. DISCUSSION At the time of the writing of this memo, MnDOT has not yet responded to the City's request. If staff receives any new information, it will be forwarded at the Council meeting. BUDGET IMPACT None at this time. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, ~nr~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file I CitlJ of FarminiJ.ton 325 Oak Street · Farmington, MN 55024 · (612) 463.7111 · Fa/( (612) 463-2591 /3e- TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Acceptance of Private Development Projects - Council Policy Discussion DATE: July 20, 1998 INTRODUCTION At the July 6, 1998 Council meeting, Council and staff discussed policy issues relative to the closing out of punch list items, and final City acceptance of private development projects. DISCUSSION As Council may recall, private developers questioned the appropriateness of current staff adding project punch list items and complained that current engineering staff was using different standards in review of public improvements contained within private development. In response, staff indicated that previous inspections of private development were in need of further review, and that it was appropriate for current staff to take a new survey of active private development in 1997 as current staff would be responsible for and would be held accountable for any future infrastructure deficiencies in projects closed out from this date forward. Further, staff indicated that the City was not enforcing different standards, but simply enforcing existing standards. As previously directed by Council, staffhas not made any changes to current engineering standards, and is in the process of compiling those standards for review by the BA TC taskforce in late fall. Further, in light of the fact that Council would be formally accepting staff recommendations to close out a project, any problems which current staff becomes aware of would need to be addressed by the developer, before final Council acceptance. In terms of staff recommendation to accept a project, staff would be very reluctant, as would presumably Council, to accept a project with recognized deficiencies, problems or incomplete work. Once a project is accepted by Council, the City then becomes responsible, both legally and financially, for resolving infrastructure related issues that were not addressed through the City inspection process. In addition, the Council and staff would potentially be faced with having to explain to residents why these issues were not addressed by the developer, and why the City did not enforce the provisions of the private development contract. Moreover, there exists the possibility that the City could be legally challenged by residents in terms of failing to protect the public's interest and/or negligence in terms of City responsibilities to enforce a legal document. As there appeared to be some need to further discuss this issue based upon the conversation at the July 6, 1998 Council meeting, direction from Council in this regard is necessary as to how staff should continue to approach these issues. According to Private Development Contracts, until a project is closed out, private developers are required to complete projects in accordance with approved plans and CitlJ of FarminiJ.ton 325 Oak Street · FarminfJton} MN 55024 · (612) 463-7111 · Falf (612) 463-2591 specifications. As the majority of punch list items are essentially related to project plans and specifications, the City appears to be well within its rights to require developers to complete these items. The following Council Policy issues and questions are in need of clarification and/or affirmation: . If staff discovers public improvements in private development which are not in accordance with approved plans and specifications, and are determined to be substandard, potentially defective or essentially incomplete, how should staff proceed in this regard? . What is Council's expectation of staff in terms of projects being inspected in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and regarding the recognition that all project deficiencies be addressed and resolved accordingly? . If private developments are to be accepted that are not completed in accordance with approved plans and specifications then Council and staffwill need to discuss professional liability and staff accountability issues in those respective areas, along with the formulation of a written Council policy articulating the release of staff liability from those standards. . In light of the fact that there has been general agreement that the Council expects quality development through adequate City inspections, how should staff address currently recognized private development project deficiencies. In other words, should staff overlook legitimate punch list items discovered since 1997 and will the governing body take actions to formally release current engineering staff and administration from potential recriminations from affected property owners in the future? BUDGET IMPACT Upon acceptance by the City, any project punch lists not completed by the developer would become the City's responsibility. Determination of how these project costs would be financed are essentially a function of the type of needed improvement. Under the City's special assessment policy, some project costs could potentially be assessed against benefiting property owners. ACTION REOUESTED Council consideration of the policy issues identified above, and direction relative to either affIrming staffs current approach in private development inspections or the formulation of Council policies articulating revised expectations concerning private development inspections. The development of revised Council policies on private development inspections and acceptance of private development projects would need to be addressed through private development contract language changes. RespeJtful~~ ~mi~~ ,),;;. . I/J,.!". ) v 1IfJ.M.' \,.,.f'.'--t(~ J{,hn F. Erar ICity Administrator